Cern 2

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-PH-EP-2015-153
LHCb-PAPER-2015-029
July 13, 2015
arXiv:1507.03414v1 [hep-ex] 13 Jul 2015
Observation of J/ψ p resonances

consistent with pentaquark states in
Λ0b → J/ψK −p decays
The LHCb collaboration1
Abstract
Observations of exotic structures in the J/ψ p channel, that we refer to as pentaquark-
charmonium states, in Λ0b → J/ψ K − p decays are presented. The data sample
corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 3 fb−1 acquired with the LHCb detector
from 7 and 8 TeV pp collisions. An amplitude analysis is performed on the three-body
final-state that reproduces the two-body mass and angular distributions. To obtain
a satisfactory fit of the structures seen in the J/ψ p mass spectrum, it is necessary
to include two Breit-Wigner amplitudes that each describe a resonant state. The
significance of each of these resonances is more than 9 standard deviations. One has
a mass of 4380 ± 8 ± 29 MeV and a width of 205 ± 18 ± 86 MeV, while the second is
narrower, with a mass of 4449.8 ± 1.7 ± 2.5 MeV and a width of 39 ± 5 ± 19 MeV.
The preferred J P assignments are of opposite parity, with one state having spin 3/2
and the other 5/2.
Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.

c CERN on behalf of the LHCb collaboration, license CC-BY-4.0.
1
Authors are listed at the end of this Letter.
Executive summary
The prospect of hadrons with more than the minimal quark content (qq or qqq) was
proposed by Gell-Mann in 1964 [1], followed by a quantitative model for two quarks plus
two antiquarks developed by Jaffe in 1976 [2]. The idea was expanded upon by Strottman
in 1979 [3] to include baryons composed of four quarks plus one antiquark; the name
pentaquark was coined by Lipkin [4]. Past claimed observations of pentaquark states have
been shown to be spurious [5], although there is at least one viable tetraquark candidate,
the Z(4430)+ that has been observed in B 0 → ψ 0 K − π + decays [6–8], implying that the
existence of pentaquark baryon states would not be surprising. States that decay into
charmonium may have particularly distinctive signatures [9].
Large yields of Λ0b → J/ψ K − p decays are available at LHCb and have been used for
the precise measurement of the Λ0b lifetime [10]. (In this Letter mention of a particular
mode implies use of its charge conjugate as well.) This decay can proceed by the diagram
shown in Fig. 1(a), and is expected to be dominated by Λ∗ → K − p resonances, as are
evident in our data shown in Fig. 2(a). It could also have exotic contributions, as indicated
by the diagram in Fig. 1(b), that could result in resonant structures in the J/ψ p mass
spectrum shown in Fig. 2(b).
Figure 1: Feynman diagrams for (a) Λ0b → J/ψ Λ∗ and (b) Λ0b → Pc+ K − decay.
3000
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(20 MeV)
800 (b) LHCb

2500 (a) LHCb
2000
600
data
1500
phase space 400
1000
200
500
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
mK p [GeV] mJ / ψp [GeV]
Figure 2: Invariant mass of (a) K − p and (b) J/ψ p combinations from Λ0b → J/ψ K − p decays.
The solid (red) curve is the expectation from phase space. The background has been subtracted.
1
In practice resonances decaying strongly into J/ψ p must have a minimal quark content
of ccuud, and thus are charmonium-pentaquarks; we label such states Pc+ , irrespective of
the internal binding mechanism. In order to ascertain if the structures seen in Fig. 2(b)
are resonant in nature and not due to reflections generated by the Λ∗ states, it is necessary
to perform a full amplitude analysis, allowing for interference effects between both decay
sequences.
The fit uses five decay angles as independent variables as well as the K − p invariant
mass mKp . First we tried to fit the data with an amplitude model that contains 14 Λ∗
states listed by the Particle Data Group [11]. As this did not give a satisfactory description
of the data, we added one Pc+ state, and when that was not sufficient we included a
second state. The two Pc+ states are found to have masses of 4380 ± 8 ± 29 MeV and
4449.8 ± 1.7 ± 2.5 MeV, with corresponding widths of 205 ± 18 ± 86 MeV and 39 ± 5 ± 19
MeV. (Natural units are used throughout this Letter. Whenever two uncertainties are
quoted the first is statistical and the second systematic.) The fractions of the total sample
due to the lower mass and higher mass states are (8.4 ± 0.7 ± 4.2)% and (4.1 ± 0.5 ± 1.1)%,
respectively. The best fit solution has spin-parity J P values of (3/2− , 5/2+ ). Acceptable
solutions are also found for additional cases with opposite parity, either (3/2+ , 5/2− ) or
(5/2+ , 3/2− ). The best fit projections are shown in Fig. 3. Both mKp and the peaking
structure in mJ/ψ p are reproduced. The significances of the lower mass and higher mass
states are 9 and 12 standard deviations, respectively.
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
2200 data 800

total fit
2000
(a) LHCb background
700 (b) LHCb
1800 Pc(4450)
Pc(4380)
1600 Λ(1405) 600
Λ(1520)
1400
Λ(1600) 500
1200 Λ(1670)
Λ(1690) 400
1000 Λ(1800)
Λ(1810)
800 Λ(1820) 300
600 Λ(1830)
Λ(1890) 200
400 Λ(2100)
Λ(2110) 100
200
0 0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Figure 3: Fit projections for (a) mKp and (b) mJ/ψ p for the reduced Λ∗ model with two Pc+ states
(see Table 1). The data are shown as solid (black) squares, while the solid (red) points show the
results of the fit. The solid (red) histogram shows the background distribution. The (blue) open
squares with the shaded histogram represent the Pc (4450)+ state, and the shaded histogram
topped with (purple) filled squares represents the Pc (4380)+ state. Each Λ∗ component is also
shown. The error bars on the points showing the fit results are due to simulation statistics.
2
Analysis and results
We use data corresponding to 1 fb−1 of integrated luminosity acquired by the LHCb
experiment in pp collisions at 7 TeV center-of-mass energy, and 2 fb−1 at 8 TeV. The
LHCb detector [12] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range
2 < η < 5. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-
strip vertex detector surrounding the pp interaction region [13], a large-area silicon-strip
detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about 4 Tm, and
three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes [14] placed downstream of
the magnet. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from
two ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors [15]. Muons are identified by a system composed of
alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional chambers [16].
Events are triggered by a J/ψ → µ+ µ− decay, requiring two identified muons with
opposite charge, each with transverse momentum, pT , greater than 500 MeV. The dimuon
system is required to form a vertex with a fit χ2 < 16, to be significantly displaced from
the nearest pp interaction vertex, and to have an invariant mass within 120 MeV of the
J/ψ mass [11]. After applying these requirements, there is a large J/ψ signal over a small
background [17]. Only candidates with dimuon invariant mass between −48 MeV and
+43 MeV relative to the observed J/ψ mass peak are selected, the asymmetry accounting
for final-state electromagnetic radiation.
Analysis preselection requirements are imposed prior to using a gradient Boosted
Decision Tree, BDTG [18], that separates the Λ0b signal from backgrounds. Each track
is required to be of good quality and multiple reconstructions of the same track are
removed. Requirements on the individual particles include pT > 550 MeV for muons, and
pT > 250 MeV for hadrons. Each hadron must have an impact parameter χ2 with respect
to the primary pp interaction vertex larger than 9, and must be positively identified in the
particle identification system. The K − p system must form a vertex with χ2 < 16, as must
the two muons from the J/ψ decay. Requirements on the Λ0b candidate include a vertex
χ2 < 50 for 5 degrees of freedom, and a flight distance of greater than 1.5 mm. The vector
from the primary vertex to the Λ0b vertex must align with the Λ0b momentum so that the
cosine of the angle between them is larger than 0.999. Candidate µ+ µ− combinations are
constrained to the J/ψ mass for subsequent use in event selection.
The BDTG technique involves a “training” procedure using sideband data background
and simulated signal samples. (The variables used are listed in the supplementary material.)
We use 2 × 106 Λ0b → J/ψ K − p events with J/ψ → µ+ µ− that are generated uniformly in
phase space in the LHCb acceptance, using Pythia [19] with a special LHCb parameter
tune [20], and the LHCb detector simulation based on Geant4 [21], described in Ref. [22].
The product of the reconstruction and trigger efficiencies within the LHCb geometric
acceptance is about 10%. In addition, specific backgrounds from B 0s and B 0 decays
are vetoed. This is accomplished by removing combinations that when interpreted as
J/ψ K + K − fall within ±30 MeV of the B 0s mass or when interpreted as J/ψ K − π + fall
within ±30 MeV of the B 0 mass. This requirement effectively eliminates background
from these sources and causes only smooth changes in the detection efficiencies across the
3
Events / ( 4 MeV)
7000
LHCb
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
5500 5600 5700
mJ / ψ K p [MeV]
Figure 4: Invariant mass spectrum of J/ψ K − p combinations, with the total fit, signal and
background components shown as solid (blue), solid (red) and dashed lines, respectively.
Λ0b decay phase space. Backgrounds from Ξb decays cannot contribute significantly to
our sample. We choose a relatively tight cut on the BDTG output variable that leaves
26 007±166 signal candidates containing 5.4% background within ±15 MeV (±2 σ) of the
J/ψ K − p mass peak, as determined by the unbinned extended likelihood fit shown in Fig. 4.
The combinatorial background is modeled with an exponential function and the Λ0b signal
shape is parameterized by a double-sided Hypatia function [23], where the signal radiative
tail parameters are fixed to values obtained from simulation. For subsequent analysis we
constrain the J/ψ K − p four-vectors to give the Λ0b invariant mass and the Λ0b momentum
vector to be aligned with the measured direction from the primary to the Λ0b vertices [24].
In Fig. 5 we show the “Dalitz” plot [25] using the K − p and J/ψ p invariant masses-
squared as independent variables. A distinct vertical band is observed in the K − p invariant
mass distribution near 2.3 GeV2 corresponding to the Λ(1520) resonance. There is also a
distinct horizontal band near 19.5 GeV2 . As we see structures in both K − p and J/ψ p mass
distributions we perform a full amplitude analysis, using the available angular variables
in addition to the mass distributions, in order to determine the resonances present. No
structure is seen in the J/ψ K − invariant mass.
We consider the two interfering processes shown in Fig. 1, which produce two distinct
decay sequences: Λ0b → J/ψ Λ∗ , Λ∗ → K − p and Λ0b → Pc+ K − , Pc+ → J/ψ p, with J/ψ →
µ+ µ− in both cases. We use the helicity formalism [26] in which each sequential decay
A → B C contributes to the amplitude a term
HλA→B
B , λC
C
DλJAA, λB −λC (φB , θA , 0)∗ RA (mBC ) = HλA→B
B , λC
C i λ A φB
e dλJAA, λB −λC (θA )RA (mBC ), (1)
where λ is the quantum number related to the projection of the spin of the particle onto
its momentum vector (helicity) and HλA→B
B , λC
C
are complex helicity-coupling amplitudes
4
m2J/ ψ p [GeV2]
26
LHCb
24
22
20
18
16
2 3 4 5 6
m2Kp [GeV2]
Figure 5: Invariant mass squared of K − p versus J/ψ p for candidates within ±15 MeV of the Λ0b
mass.
describing the decay dynamics. Here θA and φB are the polar and azimuthal angles of B
in the rest frame of A (θA is known as the “helicity angle” of A). The three arguments of
Wigner’s D-matrix are Euler angles describing the rotation of the initial coordinate system
with the z-axis along the helicity axis of A to the coordinate system with the z-axis along
the helicity axis of B [11]. We choose the convention in which the third Euler angle is
zero. In Eq. (1), dJλAA ,λB −λC (θA ) is the Wigner small-d matrix. If A has a non-negligible
natural width, the invariant mass distribution of the B and C daughters is described by
the complex function RA (mBC ) discussed below, otherwise RA (mBC ) = 1.
Using Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, we express the helicity couplings in terms of LS
couplings (BL,S ), where L is the orbital angular momentum in the decay, and S is the
total spin of A plus B:

A→B C
XXq
2L+1 JB JC S L S JA
HλB ,λC = B
2JA +1 L,S
× ,
λB −λC λB − λC 0 λB − λC λB − λC
L S
(2)
where the expressions in parentheses are the standard Wigner 3j-symbols. For strong decays,
possible L values are constrained by the conservation of parity (P ): PA = PB PC (−1)L .
Denoting J/ψ as ψ, the matrix element for the Λ0b → J/ψ Λ∗ decay sequence is
∗
X X X Λ0 →Λ∗ ψ 1
MΛλ 0 , λp , ∆λµ ≡ HλΛb ∗ , λnψ Dλ2 0 , λΛ∗ −λψ (0, θΛ0b , 0)∗
Λ Λ
b b
n λΛ∗ λψ
Λ∗ →Kp J ∗
Hλnp , 0 DλΛΛ∗n, λp (φK , θΛ∗ , 0)∗ RΛn∗ (mKp ) Dλ1ψ , ∆λµ (φµ , θψ , 0)∗ , (3)
where the x-axis, in the coordinates describing the Λ0b decay, is chosen to fix φΛ∗ = 0. The
5
sum over n is due to many different Λn∗ resonances contributing to the amplitude. Since
the J/ψ decay is electromagnetic, the values of ∆λµ ≡ λµ+ − λµ− are restricted to ±1.
Λ0 →Λ∗ ψ
There are 4 (6) independent complex HλΛb ∗ , λnψ couplings to fit for each Λn∗ resonance
for JΛn∗ = 12 (> 21 ). They can be reduced to only 1 (3) free BL,S couplings to fit if only the
lowest (the lowest two) values of L are considered. The mass mKp , together with all decay
angles entering Eq. (3), θΛ0b , θΛ∗ , φK , θψ and φµ (denoted collectively as Ω), constitute the
six independent dimensions of the Λ0b → J/ψ pK − decay phase space.
Similarly, the matrix element for the Pc+ decay chain is given by
1
Λ0 →P K
XXX
MPλ c , λP c Pc ≡ HλPbc , 0 cj Dλ2 0 , λPc (φPc , θΛPc0 , 0)∗
Λ0 p , ∆λµ Λ
b b
b j λPc λPc
ψ
P →ψp JPc j
HλPcjc ,λPc Dλ Pc Pc (φψ , θPc , 0)∗ RPcj (mψp ) Dλ1Pc , ∆λPc (φPµc , θψPc , 0)∗ , (4)
ψ p Pc , λψ −λp ψ µ
where the angles and helicity states carry the superscript or subscript Pc to distinguish
them from those defined for the Λ∗ decay chain. The sum over j allows for the possibility
of contributions from more than one Pc+ resonance. There are 2 (3) independent helicity
P →ψp Λ0 →P K
couplings HλPcjc ,λPc for JPcj = 12 (> 12 ), and a ratio of the two HλPbc , 0 cj couplings, to
ψ p
determine from the data.

The mass-dependent RΛn∗ (mKp ) and RPcj (mJ/ψ p ) terms are given by
!LX0 LX
Λ

p b q
RX (m) = BL0 X (p, p0 , d) BW(m|M0X , Γ0X ) BL0 X (q, q0 , d) . (5)
0Λ
b
MΛ0b M0X
Here p is the X = Λ∗ or Pc+ momentum in the Λ0b rest frame, and q is the momentum
of either decay product of X in the X rest frame. The symbols p0 and q0 denote values
of these quantities at the resonance peak (m = M0X ). The orbital angular momentum
between the decay products of Λ0b is denoted as LX Λ0b
. Similarly, LX is the orbital angular
momentum between the decay products of X. The orbital angular momentum barrier
factors, pL BL0 (p, p0 , d), involve the Blatt-Weisskopf functions [27], and account for the
difficulty in creating larger orbital angular momentum L, which depends on the momentum
of the decay products p and on the size of the decaying particle, given by the d constant.
We set d = 3.0 GeV−1 ∼ 0.6 fm. The relativistic Breit-Wigner amplitude is given by
1
BW(m|M0X , Γ0X ) = 2 , (6)
M0X − m2 − iM0X Γ(m)
where 2 LX +1
q M0X 0
Γ(m) = Γ0X B (q, q0 , d)2 , (7)
q0 m LX
is the mass dependent width of the resonance. For the Λ(1405) resonance, which peaks
below the K − p threshold, we use a two-component Flatté-like parameterization [28] (see
6
the supplementary material). The couplings for the allowed channels, Σπ and Kp, are
taken to be equal and to correspond to the nominal value of the width [11]. For all
resonances we assume minimal values of LX Λ0b
and of LX in RX (m). For nonresonant (NR)
terms we set BW(m) = 1 and M0 NR to the midrange mass.
Before the matrix elements for the two decay sequences can be added coherently, the
proton and muon helicity states in the Λ∗ decay chain must be expressed in the basis of
helicities in the Pc+ decay chain,
2

X X X ∗
X 1
2
Λ i ∆λ α P

|M| = Mλ , λ , ∆λ + e µ µ
p µ
d 2
P c (θp ) M c
Pc
, (8)
Λ0 λp , λp λΛ0 , λp , ∆λµ
b b
λΛ0 λp ∆λµ Pc
λ

b p
where θp is the polar angle in the p rest frame between the boost directions from the Λ∗
and Pc+ rest frames, and αµ is the azimuthal angle correcting for the difference between
the muon helicity states in the two decay chains. Note that mψp , θΛPc0 , φPc , θPc , φψ ,
b
θψPc , φPµc , θp and αµ can all be derived from the values of mKp and Ω, and thus do not
constitute independent dimensions in the Λ0b decay phase space. (A detailed prescription
for calculation of all the angles entering the matrix element is given in the supplementary
material.)
Strong interactions, which dominate Λ0b production at the LHC, conserve parity and
cannot produce longitudinal Λ0b polarization. Therefore, λΛ0b = +1/2 and −1/2 values are
equally likely, which is reflected in Eq. (8). If we allow the Λ0b polarization to vary, the
data are consistent with a polarization of zero. Interferences between various Λn∗ and Pcj+
resonances cancel in the integrated rates unless the resonances belong to the same decay
chain and have the same quantum numbers.
The matrix element given by Eq. (8) is a 6-dimensional function of mKp and Ω and
depends on the fit parameters, → −
ω , which represent independent helicity or LS couplings,
and masses and widths of resonances (or Flatté parameters), M = M(mKp , Ω|→ −ω ). After
accounting for the selection efficiency to obtain the signal probability density function
(PDF) an unbinned maximum likelihood fit is used to determine the amplitudes. Since the
efficiency does not depend on → −
ω , it is needed only in the normalization integral, which is
carried out numerically by summing |M(mKp , Ω|→ − 2
ω )| over the simulated events generated
uniformly in phase space and passed through the selection. (More details are given in the
supplementary material.)
We use two fit algorithms, which were independently coded, and which differ in the
approach used for background subtraction. In the first approach, which we refer to as
cFit, the signal region is defined as ±2 σ around the Λ0b mass peak. The total PDF used
in the fit to the candidates in the signal region, P(mKp , Ω|→ −ω ), includes a background
component with normalization fixed to be 5.4% of the total. The background PDF is
found to factorize into five two-dimensional functions of mKp and of each independent
angle, which are estimated using sidebands extending from 5.0 σ to 13.5 σ on both sides of
the peak.
In the complementary approach, called sFit, no explicit background parameterization is
7
needed. The PDF consists of only the signal component, with the background subtracted
using the sPlot technique [29] applied to the log-likelihood sum. All candidates shown in
Fig. 4 are included in the sum with weights, Wi , dependent on mJ/ψ Kp . The weights are
set according to the signal and the background probabilities determined by the fits to the
mJ/ψ pK distributions, similar to the fit displayed in Fig. 4, but performed in 32 different
bins of the two-dimensional plane of cos θΛ0b and cos θJ/ψ to account for correlations with
the mass shapes of the signal and background components. This quasi-log-likelihood
sum is scaled by a constant factor, sW ≡ i Wi / i Wi 2 , to account for the effect of the
P P
background subtraction on the statistical uncertainty. (More details on the cFit and sFit
procedures are given in the supplementary material.)
In each approach, we minimize −2 ln L(→ −
ω ) = −2sW i Wi ln P(mKpi , Ωi |→ −
P
ω ) which
→
−
gives the estimated values of the fit parameters, ω min , together with their covariance
matrix (Wi = 1 in cFit). The difference of −2 ln L(→ −
ω min ) between different amplitude
models, ∆(−2 ln L), allows their discrimination. For two models representing separate
hypotheses, e.g. when discriminating between different J P values assigned to a Pc+ state,
the assumption of a χ2 distribution with one degree of freedom for ∆(−2 ln L) under the
disfavored J P hypothesis allows the calculation of a lower limit on the significance of its
rejection, i.e. the p-value [30]. Therefore, it is convenient to express ∆(−2 ln L) values as
n2σ , where nσ corresponds to the number of standard deviations in the normal distribution
with the same p-value. For nested hypotheses, e.g. when discriminating between models
without and with Pc+ states, nσ overestimates the p-value by a modest amount. Simulations
are used to obtain better estimates of the significance of the Pc+ states.
Since the isospin of both the Λ0b and the J/ψ particles are zero, we expect that the
dominant contributions in the K − p system are Λ∗ states, which would be produced via a
∆I = 0 process. It is also possible that Σ ∗ resonances contribute, but these would have
∆I = 1. By analogy with kaon decays the ∆I = 0 process should be dominant [31]. The
list of Λ∗ states considered is shown in Table 1.
Our strategy is to first try to fit the data with a model that can describe the mass and
angular distributions including only Λ∗ resonances, allowing all possible known states and
decay amplitudes. We call this the “extended” model. It has 146 free parameters from the
helicity couplings alone. The masses and widths of the Λ∗ states are fixed to their PDG
values, since allowing them to float prevents the fit from converging. Variations in these
parameters are considered in the systematic uncertainties.
The cFit results without any Pc+ component are shown in Fig. 6. While the mKp
distribution is reasonably well fitted, the peaking structure in mJ/ψ p is not reproduced.
The same result is found using sFit. The speculative addition of Σ ∗ resonances to the
states decaying to K − p does not change this conclusion.
We will demonstrate that introducing two Pc+ → J/ψ p resonances leads to a satisfactory
description of the data. When determining parameters of the Pc+ states, we use a more
restrictive model of the K − p states (hereafter referred to as the “reduced” model) that
includes only the Λ∗ resonances that are well motivated, and has fewer than half the number
∗
of free parameters. As the minimal LΛΛ0 for the spin 9/2 Λ(2350) equals JΛ∗ −JΛ0b −JJ/ψ = 3,
b
it is extremely unlikely that this state can be produced so close to the phase space limit.
8
Table 1: The Λ∗ resonances used in the different fits. Parameters are taken from the PDG [11].
We take 5/2− for the J P of the Λ(2585). The number of LS couplings is also listed for both
the “reduced” and “extended” models. To fix overall phase and magnitude conventions, which
otherwise are arbitrary, we set B0, 1 = (1, 0) for Λ(1520). A zero entry means the state is excluded
2
from the fit.
State JP M0 (MeV) Γ0 (MeV) # Reduced # Extended

Λ(1405) 1/2− 1405.1+1.3
−1.0 50.5 ± 2.0 3 4
Λ(1520) 3/2− 1519.5 ± 1.0 15.6 ± 1.0 5 6
Λ(1600) 1/2+ 1600 150 3 4
Λ(1670) 1/2− 1670 35 3 4
Λ(1690) 3/2− 1690 60 5 6
Λ(1800) 1/2− 1800 300 4 4
Λ(1810) 1/2+ 1810 150 3 4
Λ(1820) 5/2+ 1820 80 1 6
Λ(1830) 5/2− 1830 95 1 6
Λ(1890) 3/2+ 1890 100 3 6
Λ(2100) 7/2− 2100 200 1 6
Λ(2110) 5/2+ 2110 200 1 6
Λ(2350) 9/2+ 2350 150 0 6
Λ(2585) ? ≈2585 200 0 6
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
2200 data 800

total fit
2000
(a) LHCb background
700 (b) LHCb
1800 Λ(1405)
Λ(1520)
1600 Λ(1600) 600
Λ(1670)
1400
Λ(1690) 500
1200 Λ(1800)
Λ(1810) 400
1000 Λ(1820)
Λ(1830)
800 Λ(1890) 300
600 Λ(2100)
Λ(2110) 200
400 Λ(2350)
Λ(2385) 100
200
0 0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Figure 6: Results for (a) mKp and (b) mJ/ψ p for the extended Λ∗ model fit without Pc+ states.
The data are shown as (black) squares with error bars, while the (red) circles show the results of
the fit. The error bars on the points showing the fit results are due to simulation statistics.
9
In fact L = 3 is the highest orbital angular momentum observed, with a very small rate,
in decays of B mesons [32] with much larger phase space available (Q = 2366 MeV, while
here Q = 173 MeV), and without additional suppression from the spin counting factors
present in Λ(2350) production (all three J~Λ∗ , J~Λ0b and J~J/ψ vectors have to line up in the
∗
same direction to produce the minimal LΛΛ0 value). Therefore, we eliminate it from the
b
reduced Λ∗ model. We also eliminate the Λ(2585) state, which peaks beyond the kinematic
∗
limit and has unknown spin. The other resonances are kept but high LΛΛ0 amplitudes are
b
removed; only the lowest values are kept for the high mass resonances, with a smaller
reduction for the lighter ones. The number of LS amplitudes used for each resonance is
listed in Table 1. With this model we reduce the number of parameters needed to describe
the Λ∗ decays from 146 to 64. For the different combinations of Pc+ resonances that we
try, there are up to 20 additional free parameters. Using the extended model including
one resonant Pc+ improves the fit quality, but it is still unacceptable (see supplementary
material). We find acceptable fits with two Pc+ states. We use the reduced Λ∗ model for
the central values of our results. The differences in fitted quantities with the extended
model are included in the systematic uncertainties.
The best fit combination finds two Pc+ states with J P values of 3/2− and 5/2+ , for the
lower and higher mass states, respectively. The −2 ln L values differ by only 1 unit between
the best fit and the parity reversed combination (3/2+ , 5/2− ). Other combinations are
less likely, although the (5/2+ , 3/2− ) pair changes −2 ln L by only 2.32 units and therefore
cannot be ruled out. All combinations 1/2± through 7/2± were tested, and all others
are disfavored by changes of more than 52 in the −2 ln L values. The cFit results for the
(3/2− , 5/2+ ) fit are shown in Fig. 3. Both distributions of mKp and mJ/ψ p are reproduced.
The lower mass 3/2− state has mass 4380±8 MeV and width 205±18 MeV, while the 5/2+
state has a mass of 4449.8±1.7 MeV and width 39±5 MeV; these errors are statistical only,
systematic uncertainties are discussed later. The mass resolution is approximately 2.5 MeV
and does not affect the width determinations. The sFit approach gives comparable results.
The angular distributions are reasonably well reproduced, as shown in Fig. 7, and the
comparison with the data in mKp intervals is also satisfactory as can be seen in Fig. 8.
(A fit fraction comparison between cFit and sFit is given in the supplementary material.)
The addition of further Pc+ states does not significantly improve the fit.
Adding a single 5/2+ Pc+ state to the fit with only Λ∗ states reduces −2 ln L by 14.72
using the extended model and adding a second lower mass 3/2− Pc+ state results in a further
reduction of 11.62 . √The combined reduction of −2 ln L by the two states taken together is
2
18.7 . Since taking ∆2 ln L overestimates significances, we perform simulations to obtain
more accurate evaluations. We generate pseudoexperiments using the null hypotheses
having amplitude parameters determined by the fits to the data with no or one Pc+ state.
We fit each pseudoexperiment with the null hypothesis and with Pc+ states added to the
model. The −2 ln L distributions obtained from many pseudoexperiments are consistent
with χ2 distributions with the number of degrees of freedom approximately equal to twice
the number of extra parameters in the fit. Comparing these distributions with the ∆2 ln L
values from the fits to the data, p-values can be calculated. These studies show reduction
10
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000
cosθΛ0 1000 φ
b
K
500 500
2500
0 2500
0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 cosθ 1 −2 0 2 φ [rad]
LHCb
2000 2000
data Λ (1670)
total fit Λ (1690)
1500 1500
background Λ (1800)
Λ (1810)
1000 cosθΛ* 1000 Pc(4450)
Pc(4380)
Λ (1820)
Λ (1830)
Λ (1405) Λ (1890)
500 500 Λ (1520) Λ (2100)
Λ (1600) Λ (2110)
2500
0 2500
0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 cosθ 1 −2 0 2 φ [rad]
2000 2000
1500 1500
φµ
1000
cosθJ/ ψ 1000
500 500
0 0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 cosθ 1 −2 0 2 φ [rad]
Figure 7: Various decay angular distributions for the fit with two Pc+ states. The data are shown
as (black) squares, while the (red) circles show the results of the fit. Each fit component is also
shown. The angles are defined in the text.
11
400
Events/(15 MeV)
(a) (b)
200
400
0
Events/(15 MeV)
(c) (d)
LHCb
200
0
4 4.5 5 4 4.5 5
m J/ ψ p [GeV] m J/ ψ p [GeV]
Figure 8: mJ/ψ p in various intervals of mKp for the fit with two Pc+ states: (a) mKp < 1.55 GeV,
(b) 1.55 < mKp < 1.70 GeV, (c) 1.70 < mKp < 2.00 GeV, and (d) mKp > 2.00 GeV. The data
are shown as (black) squares with error bars, while the (red) circles show the results of the fit.
The blue and purple histograms show the two Pc+ states. See Fig. 7 for the legend.
12
√
of the significances relative to ∆2 ln L by about 20%, giving overall significances of 9 σ
and 12 σ, for the lower and higher mass Pc+ states, respectively. The combined significance
of two Pc+ states is 15 σ. Use of the extended model to evaluate the significance includes
the effect of systematic uncertainties due to the possible presence of additional Λ∗ states
or higher L amplitudes.
Systematic uncertainties are evaluated for the masses, widths and fit fractions of the
Pc states, and for the fit fractions of the two lightest and most significant Λ∗ states.
+
Additional sources of modeling uncertainty that we have not considered may affect the
fit fractions of the heavier Λ∗ states. The sources of systematic uncertainties are listed
in Table 2. They include differences between the results of the extended versus reduced
model, varying the Λ∗ masses and widths, uncertainties in the identification requirements
for the proton, and restricting its momentum, inclusion of a nonresonant amplitude in
the fit, use of separate higher and lower Λ0b mass sidebands, alternate J P fits, varying
the Blatt-Weisskopf barrier factor, d, between 1.5 and 4.5 GeV−1 , changing the angular
momentum L used in Eq. (5) by one or two units, and accounting for potential mismodeling
of the efficiencies. For the Λ(1405) fit fraction we also added an uncertainty for the Flatté
couplings, determined by both halving and doubling their ratio, and taking the maximum
deviation as the uncertainty.
Table 2: Summary of systematic uncertainties on Pc+ masses, widths and fit fractions, and Λ∗ fit
fractions. A fit fraction is the ratio of the phase space integrals of the matrix element squared
for a single resonance and for the total amplitude. The terms “low” and “high” correspond to
the lower and higher mass Pc+ states. The sFit/cFit difference is listed as a cross-check and not
included as an uncertainty.
Source M0 (MeV) Γ0 (MeV) Fit fractions (%)

low high low high low high Λ(1405) Λ(1520)
Extended vs. reduced 21 0.2 54 10 3.14 0.32 1.37 0.15
Λ∗ masses & widths 7 0.7 20 4 0.58 0.37 2.49 2.45
Proton ID 2 0.3 1 2 0.27 0.14 0.20 0.05
10 < pp < 100 GeV 0 1.2 1 1 0.09 0.03 0.31 0.01
Nonresonant 3 0.3 34 2 2.35 0.13 3.28 0.39
Separate sidebands 0 0 5 0 0.24 0.14 0.02 0.03
J P (3/2+ , 5/2− ) or (5/2+ , 3/2− ) 10 1.2 34 10 0.76 0.44
d = 1.5 − 4.5 GeV−1 9 0.6 19 3 0.29 0.42 0.36 1.91
LPΛc0 Λ0b → Pc+ (low/high)K − 6 0.7 4 8 0.37 0.16
b
LPc Pc+ (low/high) → J/ψ p 4 0.4 31 7 0.63 0.37
Λ∗
LΛn0 Λ0b → J/ψ Λ∗ 11 0.3 20 2 0.81 0.53 3.34 2.31
b
Efficiencies 1 0.4 4 0 0.13 0.02 0.26 0.23
Change Λ(1405) coupling 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.90 0
Overall 29 2.5 86 19 4.21 1.05 5.82 3.89
sFit/cFit cross check 5 1.0 11 3 0.46 0.01 0.45 0.13
13
The stability of the results is cross-checked by comparing the data recorded in 2011/2012,
with the LHCb dipole magnet polarity in up/down configurations, Λ0b /Λ0b decays, and Λ0b
produced with low/high values of pT . Extended model fits without including Pc+ states
were tried with the addition of two high mass Λ∗ resonances of freely varied mass and
width, or four nonresonant components up to spin 3/2; these do not explain the data. The
fitters were tested on simulated pseudoexperiments and no biases were found. In addition,
selection requirements are varied, and the vetoes of B 0s and B 0 are removed and explicit
models of those backgrounds added to the fit; all give consistent results.
Further evidence for the resonant character of the higher mass, narrower, Pc+ state is
obtained by viewing the evolution of the complex amplitude in the Argand diagram [11].
In the amplitude fits discussed above, the Pc (4450)+ is represented by a Breit-Wigner
amplitude, where the magnitude and phase vary with mJ/ψ p according to an approximately
circular trajectory in the (Re APc , Im APc ) plane, where APc is the mJ/ψ p dependent
part of the Pc (4450)+ amplitude. We perform an additional fit to the data using the
reduced Λ∗ model, in which we represent the Pc (4450)+ amplitude as the combination of
independent complex amplitudes at six equidistant points in the range ±Γ0 = 39 MeV
around M0 = 4449.8 MeV as determined in the default fit. Real and imaginary parts of
the amplitude are interpolated in mass between the fitted points. The resulting Argand
diagram, shown in Fig. 9(a), is consistent with a rapid counter-clockwise change of the
Pc (4450)+ phase when its magnitude reaches the maximum, a behavior characteristic of
a resonance. A similar study for the wider state is shown in Fig. 9(b). Although the fit
does show a large phase change, the amplitude values are sensitive to the details of the Λ∗
model and so this study is not conclusive.
Different binding mechanisms of pentaquark states are possible. Tight-binding was
envisioned originally [2, 3]. Examples of other mechanisms include a diquark-diquark-
antiquark model [33, 34], a diquark-triquark model [35], and a coupled channel model [36].
Weakly bound “molecules” of a baryon plus a meson have been also discussed [37].
Models involving thresholds or “cusps” have been invoked to explain some exotic meson
candidates via nonresonant scattering mechanisms [38–40]. There are certain obvious
difficulties with the use of this approach to explain our results. The closest threshold to
the high mass state is at 4457.1±0.3 MeV resulting from a Λc (2595)+ D0 combination,
which is somewhat higher than the peak mass value and would produce a structure with
quantum numbers J P = 1/2+ which are disfavored by our data. There is no threshold
close to the lower mass state.
In conclusion, we have presented a full amplitude fit to the Λ0b → J/ψ K − p decay.
We observe significant Λ∗ production recoiling against the J/ψ with the lowest mass
contributions, the Λ(1405) and Λ(1520) states having fit fractions of (15 ± 1 ± 6)% and
(19±1±4)%, respectively. The data cannot be satisfactorily described without including two
Breit-Wigner shaped resonances in the J/ψ p invariant mass distribution. The significances
of the lower mass and higher mass states are 9 and 12 standard deviations, respectively.
These structures cannot be accounted for by reflections from J/ψ Λ∗ resonances or other
known sources. Interpreted as resonant states they must have minimal quark content of
ccuud, and would therefore be called pentaquark-charmonium states. The lighter state
14
0.15
Im A Pc
0.1 (a) (b)
0.05
-0.05
Pc(4450)
-0.1 Pc(4380)
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
LHCb
-0.35
-0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.115 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Re A Pc Re APc
Figure 9: Fitted values of the real and imaginary parts of the amplitudes for the baseline (3/2− ,
5/2+ ) fit for a) the Pc (4450)+ state and b) the Pc (4380)+ state, each divided into six mJ/ψ p bins
of equal width between −Γ0 and +Γ0 shown in the Argand diagrams as connected points with
error bars (mJ/ψ p increases counterclockwise). The solid (red) curves are the predictions from
the Breit-Wigner formula for the same mass ranges with M0 (Γ0 ) of 4450 (39) MeV and 4380
(205) MeV, respectively, with the phases and magnitudes at the resonance masses set to the
average values between the two points around M0 . The phase convention sets B0, 1 = (1, 0) for
2
Λ(1520). Systematic uncertainties are not included.
Pc (4380)+ has a mass of 4380 ± 8 ± 29 MeV and a width of 205 ± 18 ± 86 MeV, while the
heavier state Pc (4450)+ has a mass of 4449.8 ± 1.7 ± 2.5 MeV and a width of 39 ± 5 ± 19
MeV. A model-independent representation of the Pc (4450)+ contribution in the fit shows
a phase change in amplitude consistent with that of a resonance. The parities of the two
states are opposite with the preferred spins being 3/2 for one state and 5/2 for the other.
The higher mass state has a fit fraction of (4.1 ± 0.5 ± 1.1)%, and the lower mass state of
(8.4 ± 0.7 ± 4.2)%, of the total Λ0b → J/ψ K − p sample.
We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for
the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff
at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national
agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3
(France); BMBF, DFG, HGF and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); FOM and NWO (The
Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FANO
(Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United
Kingdom); NSF (USA). The Tier1 computing centres are supported by IN2P3 (France),
KIT and BMBF (Germany), INFN (Italy), NWO and SURF (The Netherlands), PIC
(Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom). We are indebted to the communities behind the
15
multiple open source software packages on which we depend. We are also thankful for
the computing resources and the access to software R&D tools provided by Yandex LLC
(Russia). Individual groups or members have received support from EPLANET, Marie
Sklodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil général de Haute-Savoie,
Labex ENIGMASS and OCEVU, Région Auvergne (France), RFBR (Russia), XuntaGal
and GENCAT (Spain), Royal Society and Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851
(United Kingdom).
16
Appendix: Supplementary material
Contents
1 Variables used in the BDTG 18
2 Additional fit results 18

2.1 Reduced model fit projections for mJ/ψ K − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Extended model fit with one Pc+ state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Results of extended model fit with two Pc + states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 Fit fraction comparison between cFit and sFit 20
4 Details of the matrix element for the decay amplitude 22

4.1 Helicity formalism and notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2 Matrix element for the Λ∗ decay chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Matrix element for the Pc+ decay chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4 Reduction of the number of helicity couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 Details of fitting techniques 36
17
1 Variables used in the BDTG
Muon identification uses information from several parts of the detector, including the
RICH detectors, the calorimeters and the muon system. Likelihoods are formed for the
muon and pion hypotheses. The difference in the logarithms of the likelihoods, DLL(µ − π),
is used to distinguish between the two [15]. The smaller value of the two discriminants
DLL(µ+ − π + ) and DLL(µ− − π − ) is used as one of the BDTG variables.
The next set of variables uses the kaon and proton tracks. The χ2IP is defined as the
difference in χ2 of the primary vertex reconstructed with and without the considered track.
The smaller χ2IP of the K − and p is used in the BDTG. The scalar pT sum of the K − and
p is another variable.
The last set of variables uses the Λ0b candidate. The cosine of the angle between a
vector from the primary vertex to the Λ0b vertex and the Λ0b momentum vector is one
input variable. In addition the χ2IP , the flight distance, the pT and the vertex χ2 of the Λ0b
candidate are used.
2 Additional fit results

2.1 Reduced model fit projections for mJ/ψ K
The Dalitz plots for the other two possible projections are shown in Fig. 10. There is no
obvious resonance structure in the J/ψ K − mass-squared distribution.
Our fit describes well the mJ/ψ K distribution as shown by viewing the projections of
the reduced model fit. They are shown for different slices of mKp in Fig. 11.
m 2J/ ψK [GeV2]
22
m 2J/ ψK [GeV2]
(a) 22
21 LHCb 21 LHCb (b)
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
14 14
13 13
20 25 2 3 4 5 6
m 2J/ ψp [GeV2] m 2Kp [GeV2]
Figure 10: (a) Invariant mass squared of J/ψ K − versus J/ψ p and (b) of J/ψ K − versus K − p for
candidates within ±15 MeV of the Λ0b mass.
18
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
(a) (b)
200 200
0 0
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
4 4.5 4 4.5
(c) m J/ ψ K [GeV] (d) m J/ ψ K [GeV]
LHCb
200 200
0 0
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
4 4.5 4 4.5
data Λ(1670)
(e) m J/ ψ K [GeV] m J/Λψ(1690)
K [GeV]
total fit
background Λ(1800)
500 500
Λ(1810)
Pc(4450)
Λ(1820)
Pc(4380) Λ(1830)
Λ (1405) Λ(1890)
Λ (1520) Λ(2100)
Λ (1600) Λ(2110)
0 0
4 4.5 4 4.5
m J/ ψ K [GeV] m J/ ψ K [GeV]
Figure 11: Projections onto mJ/ψ K in various intervals of mKp for the reduced model fit (cFit) with
two Pc+ states of J P equal to 3/2− and 5/2+ : (a) mKp < 1.55 GeV, (b) 1.55 < mKp < 1.70 GeV,
(c) 1.70 < mKp < 2.00 GeV, (d) mKp > 2.00 GeV, and (e) all mKp . The data are shown as
(black) squares with error bars, while the (red) circles show the results of the fit. The individual
resonances are given in the legend.
2.2 Extended model fit with one Pc+

In the fits with one Pc+ amplitude, we test J P values of 1/2± , 3/2± and 5/2± . The mass
and width of the putative Pc+ state are allowed to vary. There are a total of 146 free
parameters for the Λ∗ states to which we add either three complex couplings for 1/2± or
19
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
2200 data 800
total fit
2000
(a) LHCb
background
700 (b) LHCb
1800 Pc
Λ (1405)
1600 Λ (1520) 600
Λ (1600)
1400 Λ (1670)
500
Λ (1690)
1200 Λ (1800)
Λ (1810) 400
1000 Λ (1820)
Λ (1830) 300
800
Λ (1890)
600 Λ (2100)
Λ (2110) 200
400 Λ (2350)
Λ (2385) 100
200
0 0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Figure 12: Results of the fit with one J P = 5/2+ Pc+ candidate. (a) Projection of the invariant
mass of K − p combinations from Λ0b → J/ψ K − p candidates. The data are shown as (black)
squares with error bars, while the (red) circles show the results of the fit; (b) the corresponding
J/ψ p mass projection. The (blue) shaded plot shows the Pc+ projection, the other curves represent
individual Λ∗ states.
four for higher spins. The best fit is with a 5/2+ state, which improves −2 ln L by 215.
Figure 12 shows the projections for this fit. While the mKp projection is well described,
clear discrepancies in mJ/ψ p remain visible.
2.3 Results of extended model fit with two Pc + states

For completeness we include here the results of the extended model fit with two Pc +
states using cFit. We find acceptable fits for several combinations. For a lower mass
J P = 3/2− state and a higher mass 5/2+ state, the masses (widths) are 4358.9±6.6 MeV
(151.1±13.7 MeV), and 4450.1±1.7 MeV (48.6±4.0 MeV), respectively. The uncertainties
are statistical only. The results for this two Pc+ fit are shown in Fig. 13. Both the mKp
distribution and the peaking structure in mJ/ψ p are reproduced.
3 Fit fraction comparison between cFit and sFit

The fit fraction for a given resonance is a ratio of the phase space integrals of the matrix
element squared, as given in Eq. (8), calculated for the resonance amplitude taken alone
and for the total matrix element summing over all contributions. The fit fractions are listed
in Table 3. The Pc+ states have well determined fit fractions. There is good agreement
between cFit and sFit. Note that the results for the Λ(1405) resonance are based on our
use of a particular Flatté amplitude model.
20
Events/(15 MeV)
Events/(15 MeV)
2200 data 800

total fit
2000
(a) LHCb
background
700 (b) LHCb
Pc(4450)
1800
Pc(4380)
Λ (1405) 600
1600
Λ (1520)
1400 Λ (1600)
Λ (1670) 500
1200 Λ (1690)
Λ (1800)
400
1000 Λ (1810)
Λ (1820)
800 Λ (1830) 300
Λ (1890)
600 Λ (2100)
Λ (2110) 200
400 Λ (2350)
Λ (2385) 100
200
0 0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Figure 13: Results from cFit for (a) mKp and (b) mJ/ψ p for the extended model with two Pc+
states. The data are shown (black) squares with error bars, while the (red) circles show the
results of the fit. Each Λ∗ component is also shown. The (blue) open squares and (purple) solid
squares show the two Pc+ states.
Table 3: Fit fractions of the different components from cFit and sFit for the default (3/2− , 5/2+ )
model. Uncertainties are statistical only.
Particle Fit fraction (%) cFit Fit fraction (%) sFit

Pc (4380)+ 8.42 ± 0.68 7.96 ± 0.67
Pc (4450)+ 4.09 ± 0.48 4.10 ± 0.45
Λ(1405) 14.64 ± 0.72 14.19 ± 0.67
Λ(1520) 18.93 ± 0.52 19.06 ± 0.47
Λ(1600) 23.50 ± 1.48 24.42 ± 1.36
Λ(1670) 1.47 ± 0.49 1.53 ± 0.50
Λ(1690) 8.66 ± 0.90 8.60 ± 0.85
Λ(1800) 18.21 ± 2.27 16.97 ± 2.20
Λ(1810) 17.88 ± 2.11 17.29 ± 1.85
Λ(1820) 2.32 ± 0.69 2.32 ± 0.65
Λ(1830) 1.76 ± 0.58 2.00 ± 0.53
Λ(1890) 3.96 ± 0.43 3.97 ± 0.38
Λ(2100) 1.65 ± 0.29 1.94 ± 0.28
Λ(2110) 1.62 ± 0.32 1.44 ± 0.28
21
4 Details of the matrix element for the decay ampli-
tude
The matrix element for Λ0b → ψK − p, ψ → µ+ µ− decays2 must allow for various conven-
tional Λ∗ → K − p resonances and exotic pentaquark states Pc+ → ψp that could interfere
with each other.
We use the helicity formalism to write down the matrix element. To make the derivation
of the matrix element easier to comprehend we start with a brief outline of this formalism
and our notation. Then we discuss the application to the Λ0b → Λ∗ ψ, Λ∗ → K − p,
ψ → µ+ µ− decay sequence, called hereafter the Λ∗ decay chain matrix element. Next we
discuss construction of the Λ0b → Pc+ K − , Pc+ → ψp, ψ → µ+ µ− decay sequence, called
hereafter the Pc decay chain matrix element, which can be coherently added to that for the
Λ∗ decay chain. We also discuss a possible reduction of the number of helicity couplings
to be determined from the data using their relationships to the LS couplings.
4.1 Helicity formalism and notation

For each two-body decay A → B C, a coordinate system is set up in the rest frame of A,
with ẑ being3 the direction of quantization for its spin. We denote this coordinate system
{A} {A} {A}
as (x0 , y0 , z0 ), where the superscript “{A}” means “in the rest frame of A”, while
the subscript “0” means the initial coordinates. For the first particle in the decay chain
(Λ0b ), the choice of these coordinates is arbitrary.4 However, once defined, these coordinates
must be used consistently between all decay sequences described by the matrix element.
For subsequent decays, e.g. B → D E, the choice of these coordinates is already fixed by
the transformation from the A to the B rest frames, as discussed below. Helicity is defined
as the projection of the spin of the particle onto the direction of its momentum. When
the z axis coincides with the particle momentum, we denote its spin projection onto it
(i.e. the mz quantum number) as λ. To use the helicity formalism, the initial coordinate
system must be rotated to align the z axis with the direction of the momentum of one of
the daughter particles, e.g. the B. A generalized rotation operator can be formulated in
three-dimensional space, R(α, β, γ), that uses Euler angles. Applying this operator results
in a sequence of rotations: first by the angle α about the ẑ0 axis, followed by the angle β
about the rotated ŷ1 axis and then finally by the angle γ about the rotated ẑ2 axis. We use
a subscript denoting the axes, to specify the rotations which have been already performed
{A} {A} {A}
on the coordinates. The spin eigenstates of particle A, |JA , mA i, in the (x0 , y0 , z0 )
coordinate system can be expressed in the basis of its spin eigenstates, |JA , m0A i, in the
2
We denote J/ψ as ψ for efficiency of the notation.
3
The “hat” symbol denotes a unit vector in a given direction.
4
When designing an analysis to be sensitive (or insensitive) to a particular case of polarization, the
choice is not arbitrary, but this does not change the fact that one can quantize the Λ0b spin along any
well-defined direction. The Λ0b polarization may be different for different choices.
22
{A} {A} {A}
rotated (x3 , y3 , z3 ) coordinate system with the help of Wigner’s D−matrices
X J
|JA , mA i = DmAA , m0 (α, β, γ)∗ |JA , m0A i, (9)
A
m0A
where
J ∗ 0 ∗ i mα J im γ 0
Dm, m0 (α, β, γ) = hJ, m|R(α, β, γ)|J, m i = e dm,m 0 (β) e , (10)
and where the small-d Wigner matrix contains known functions of β that depend on
{A} {A}
J, m, m0 . To achieve the rotation of the original ẑ0 axis onto the B momentum (~pB ),
{A} {A} {A} {A}
it is sufficient to rotate by α = φB , β = θB , where φB , θB are the azimuthal and
{A} {A} {A}
polar angles of the B momentum vector in the original coordinates i.e. (x̂0 , ŷ0 , ẑ0 ).
This is depicted in Fig. 14, for the case when the quantization axis for the spin of A is its
momentum in some other reference frame. Since the third rotation is not necessary, we
{A}
set γ = 0.5 The angle θB is usually called “the A helicity angle”, thus to simplify the
{A}
notation we will denote it as θA . For compact notation, we will also denote φB as φB .
These angles can be determined from6

{A} {A}
φB = atan2 pB y , pB x

{A} {A} {A} {A}
= atan2 ŷ0 · p~B , x̂0 · p~B

{A} {A} {A} {A} {A}
= atan2 (ẑ0 × x̂0 ) · p~B , x̂0 · p~B , (11)
{A} {A}
cos θA = ẑ0 · p̂B . (12)
{A}
Angular momentum conservation requires m0A = m0B + m0C = λB − λC (since p~C points
{A}
in the opposite direction to ẑ3 , m0C = −λC ). Each two-body decay adds a multiplicative
term to the matrix element
HλA→B
B , λC
C
DmJAA , λB −λC (φB , θA , 0)∗ . (13)
The helicity couplings HλA→B

B , λC
C
are complex constants. Their products from subsequent
decays are to be determined by the fit to the data (they represent the decay dynamics). If
the decay is strong or electromagnetic, it conserves parity which reduces the number of
independent helicity couplings via the relation
A→B C
H−λ B ,−λC
= PA PB PC (−1)JB +JC −JA HλA→B
B , λC
C
, (14)
where P stands for the intrinsic parity of a particle.

5
An alternate convention is to set γ = −α. The two conventions lead to equivalent formulae.
6
The function atan2(x, y) is the tan−1 (y/x) function with two arguments. The purpose of using
two arguments instead of one is to gather information on the signs of the inputs in order to return the
appropriate quadrant of the computed angle.
23
z {A} {A} z{A}
{B}
2 =z 0
0
θ B y {A}
0
B
Rest frame of A C x {A}
0
boost
B
C φB{A}
Helicity frame of A z {A}
0
A
y {A}
0
x {A}
0
Figure 14: Coordinate axes for the spin quantization of particle A (bottom part), chosen to be
the helicity frame of A (ẑ0 ||~
pA in the rest frame of its mother particle or in the laboratory frame),
{A} {A}
together with the polar (θB ) and azimuthal (φB ) angles of the momentum of its daughter B
in the A rest frame (top part). Notice that the directions of these coordinate axes, denoted as
{A} {A} {A}
x̂0 , ŷ0 , and ẑ0 , do not change when boosting from the helicity frame of A to its rest frame.
{A} {A} {A}
After the Euler rotation R(α = φB , β = θB , γ = 0) (see the text), the rotated z axis, ẑ2 , is
aligned with the B momentum; thus the rotated coordinates become the helicity frame of B. If
B has a sequential decay, then the same boost-rotation process is repeated to define the helicity
frame for its daughters.
After multiplying terms given by Eq. (13) for all decays in the decay sequence, they
must be summed up coherently over the helicity states of intermediate particles, and
incoherently over the helicity states of the initial and final-state particles. Possible helicity
values of B and C particles are constrained by |λB | ≤ JB , |λC | ≤ JC and |λB − λC | ≤ JA .
When dealing with the subsequent decay of the daughter, B → D E, four-vectors of
{A} {A}
all particles must be first Lorentz boosted to the rest frame of B, along the p~B i.e. ẑ3
direction (this is the z axis in the rest frame of A after the Euler rotations; we use the
subscript “3” for the number of rotations performed on the coordinates, because of the
three Euler angles, however, since we use the γ = 0 convention these coordinates are the
24
same as after the first two rotations). This is visualized in Fig. 14, with B → D E particle
labels replaced by A → B C labels. This transformation does not change vectors that
are perpendicular to the boost direction. The transformed coordinates become the initial
coordinate system quantizing the spin of B in its rest frame,
{B} {A}
x̂0 = x̂3 ,
{B} {A}
ŷ0 = ŷ3 ,
{B} {A}
ẑ0 = ẑ3 . (15)
The processes of rotation and subsequent boosting can be repeated until the final-state
{B}
particles are reached. In practice, there are two equivalent ways to determine the ẑ0
direction. Using Eq. (15) we can set it to the direction of the B momentum in the A rest
frame
{B} {A} {A}
ẑ0 = ẑ3 = p̂B . (16)
Alternatively, we can make use of the fact that B and C are back-to-back in the rest frame
{A} {A}
of A, p~C = −~pB . Since the momentum of C is antiparallel to the boost direction from
the A to B rest frames, the C momentum in the B rest frame will be different, but it will
still be antiparallel to this boost direction
{B} {B}
ẑ0 = −p̂C . (17)
{B} {A}
To determine x̂0 from Eq. (15), we need to find x̂3 . After the first rotation by φB
{A} {A} {A}
about ẑ0 , the x̂1 axis is along the component of p~B which is perpendicular to the
{A}
ẑ0 axis
{A} {A} {A} {A}
~aB⊥z0 ≡ (~pB )⊥ẑ {A} = p~B − (~pB )||ẑ {A} ,
0 0
{A} {A} {A} {A}
= p~B − (~pB · ẑ0 ) ẑ0 ,
{A}
{A} {A} ~aB⊥z0
x̂1 = âB⊥z0 = {A}
. (18)
| ~aB⊥z0 |
{A} {A} {A} {A} {A} {A}
After the second rotation by θA about ŷ1 , ẑ2 ≡ ẑ3 = p̂B , and x̂2 = x̂3 is
{A}
antiparallel to the component of the ẑ0 vector that is perpendicular to the new z axis
{A}
i.e. p̂B . Thus
{A} {A} {A} {A} {A} {A}
~az0 ⊥B ≡ (ẑ0 )⊥~p {A} = ẑ0 − (ẑ0 · p̂B ) p̂B ,
B
{A}
{B} {A} {A} ~az0 ⊥B
x̂0 = x̂3 = − âz0 ⊥B = − {A}
. (19)
| ~az0 ⊥B |
{B} {B} {B}
Then we obtain ŷ0 = ẑ0 × x̂0 .
25
If C also decays, C → F G, then the coordinates for the quantization of C spin in the
C rest frame are defined by
{C} {A} {A} {C}
ẑ0 = −ẑ3 = p̂C = −p̂B , (20)
{C} {A} {A} {A}
x̂0 = x̂3 = − âz0 ⊥B = +âz0 ⊥C , (21)
{C} {C} {C}
ŷ0 = ẑ0 × x̂0 , (22)
i.e. the z axis is reflected compared to the system used for the decay of particle B (it must
point in the direction of C momentum in the A rest frame), but the x axis is kept the
same, since we chose particle B for the rotation used in Eq. (13).
4.2 Matrix element for the Λ∗ decay chain

We first discuss the part of the matrix element describing conventional Λ0b → Λn∗ ψ, Λn∗ → Kp
decays (i.e. Λ∗ decay chain), where Λn∗ denotes various possible excitations of the Λ, e.g.
Λ(1520). For simplicity we often refer to Λn∗ as Λ∗ , unless we label an n-dependent quantity.
The weak decay Λ0b → Λn∗ ψ is described by
1
Λ0 →Λ∗ ψ
HλΛb ∗ , λnψ Dλ2 0 , λΛ∗ −λψ (φΛ∗ , θΛ0b , 0)∗ , (23)
Λ
b
Λ0 →Λ∗ ψ
where HλΛb ∗ , λnψ are resonance (i.e. n) dependent helicity couplings to be determined by a
fit to the data. There are 4 different complex values of these couplings to be determined
for each Λn∗ resonance with spin JΛn∗ = 12 , and 6 values for higher spins. The couplings are
complex parameters; thus each independent coupling contributes 2 free parameters (taken
to be real and imaginary parts) to the fit. Since the ψ and Λ∗ are intermediate particles
in the decay chain, the matrix element terms for different values of λψ and λΛ∗ must be
added coherently.
{Λ0}
The choice of the ẑ0 b direction for the Λ0b spin quantization is arbitrary. We choose
{Λ0}
the Λ0b momentum in the lab frame to define the ẑ0 b direction, giving its spin projection
onto this axis the meaning of the Λ0b helicity (λΛ0b ). In the Λ0b rest frame, this direction is
defined by the direction of the boost from the lab frame (Eq. (16)),
{Λ0b} {lab}
ẑ0 = p̂Λ0 , (24)
b
as depicted in Fig. 15. With this choice, θΛ0b is the Λ0b helicity angle and can be calculated
as
{lab} {Λ0}
cos θΛ0b = p̂Λ0 · p̂Λ∗ b . (25)
b
Longitudinal polarization of the Λ0b

via strong production mechanisms is forbidden due to
parity conservation in strong interactions, causing λΛ0b = + 12 and − 12 to be equally likely.
{Λ0b}
Terms with different λΛ0b values must be added incoherently. The choice of x̂0 direction
26
in the Λ0b rest frame is also arbitrary. We use the Λ0b → Λ∗ ψ decay plane in the lab frame
to define it, which makes the φΛ∗ angle zero by definition.
The strong decay Λn∗ → Kp is described by a term
Λ∗ →Kp J ∗
Hλnp DλΛΛ∗n, λp (φK , θΛ∗ , 0)∗ RΛn∗ (mKp ). (26)
Λ∗ →Kp
Since the K − meson is spinless, the resonance-dependent helicity coupling Hλnp depends
1
only on proton helicity, λp = ± 2 . As strong decays conserve parity, the two helicity
couplings are related
Λn∗ →Kp J ∗ − 12 Λn∗ →Kp
H−λ p
= −P Λn
∗ (−1) Λn Hλ p
, (27)
Λ∗ →Kp
where PΛn∗ is the parity of Λn∗ . Since the overall magnitude and phase of H+n1 can
2
Λ0b →Λn∗ ψ Λn∗ →Kp
be absorbed into a redefinition of the H λΛ∗ , λψ couplings, we set H + 21
= (1, 0) and
Λ∗ →Kp 3
H−n1 = (PΛn∗ (−1)JΛn∗ − 2 , 0), where the values in parentheses give the real and imaginary
2
parts of the couplings.
The angles φK and θΛ∗ are the azimuthal and polar angles of the kaon in the Λ∗ rest
{Λ∗}
frame (see Fig. 15). The ẑ0 direction is defined by the boost direction from the Λ0b rest
{Λ∗}
frame, which coincides with the −~pψ direction in this frame (Eq. (17)). This leads to
{Λ∗} {Λ∗}
cos θΛ∗ = −p̂ψ · p̂K , (28)
{Λ∗}
with both vectors in the Λ∗ rest frame. As explained in Sec. 4.1, the x̂0 direction is
0
defined by the choice of coordinates in the Λb rest frame discussed above. Following
Λb rest frame
φΛ = 0 ∗
θΛ Λ* φK K−
− z
θψ μ
−
μ 0
K
−
ψ b
x p
0
p θΛ
*
μ+ φ
μ+ Λ* rest frame
ψ rest frame
μ
ψ Λ*
Λb
lab frame
Figure 15: Definition of the decay angles in the Λ∗ decay chain.
27
Eq. (19) and (24), we have
{Λ0} {lab} {lab} {Λ0} {Λ0}
~az0 ⊥Λ
b
∗ = p̂ 0
Λ
− (p̂Λ0 · p̂Λ∗ b ) p̂Λ∗ b ,
b b
{Λ0}
{Λ∗} {Λ0} ~az0 ⊥Λ
b
∗
x̂0 = x̂3 b = − {Λ0b}
. (29)
| ~az0 ⊥Λ ∗ |
The azimuthal angle of the K − can now be determined in the Λ∗ rest frame from (Eq. (11))

{Λ∗} {Λ∗} {Λ∗} {Λ∗} {Λ∗}
φK = atan2 −(p̂ψ × x̂0 ) · p̂K , x̂0 · p̂K . (30)
The term RΛn∗ (mKp ) describes the Λn∗ resonance that appears in the invariant mass
distribution of the kaon-proton system,
!LΛn∗0 !LΛ∗
Λ n
0 p b
Λ ∗ Λ ∗
0 q
RΛn∗ (mKp ) = B Λn∗ (p, p0 , d) BW(mKp |M0 , Γ0 ) BLΛ∗ (q, q0 , d)
n n
Λ∗
.
L 0
Λ
b
MΛ0b n
M0 n
(31)
{Λ0b}
Here, p is the Λ momentum in the Λb rest frame (p = |~pΛ∗ |). Similarly, q is the K −
∗ 0
{Λ∗}
momentum in the Λ∗ rest frame (q = |~pK |). The symbols p0 and q0 denote values of
Λ∗
these quantities at the resonance peak (mKp = M0 n ). The orbital angular momentum
Λ∗
between the Λ∗ and ψ particles in the Λ0b decay is denoted as LΛn0 . Similarly, LΛn∗ is the
b
orbital angular momentum between the p and K − in the Λn∗ decay. For the orbital angular
momentum barrier factors, pL BL0 (p, p0 , d), we use the Blatt-Weisskopf functions [41],
B00 (p, p0 , d) =1 ,
s
1 + (p0 d)2
B10 (p, p0 , d) = ,
1 + (p d)2
s
9 + 3(p0 d)2 + (p0 d)4
B20 (p, p0 , d) = , (32)
9 + 3(p d)2 + (p d)4
s
225 + 45(p0 d)2 + 6(p0 d)4 + (p0 d)6
B30 (p, p0 , d) = ,
225 + 45(p d)2 + 6(p d)4 + (p d)6
s
11025 + 1575(p0 d)2 + 135(p0 d)4 + 10(p0 d)6 + (p0 d)8
B40 (p, p0 , d) = ,
11025 + 1575(p d)2 + 135(p d)4 + 10(p d)6 + (p d)8
s
893025 + 99225(p0 d)2 + 6300(p0 d)4 + 315(p0 d)6 + 15(p0 d)8 + (p0 d)10
B50 (p, p0 , d) = ,
893025 + 99225(p d)2 + 6300(p d)4 + 315(p d)6 + 15(p d)8 + (p d)10
to account for the difficulty in creating the orbital angular momentum L, which depends
on the momentum of the decay products p (in the rest frame of the decaying particle)
and on the size of the decaying particle given by the constant d. We set d = 3.0 GeV−1
∼0.6 fm. The relativistic Breit-Wigner amplitude is given by
1
BW(m|M0 , Γ0 ) = 2 2
, (33)
M0 − m − iM0 Γ(m)
28
where 2 LΛ∗ +1
q M0 0
Γ(m) = Γ0 B (q, q0 , d)2 . (34)
q0 m LΛ∗
In the case of the Λ(1405) resonance, which peaks below the K − p threshold, we
use a two-component width equivalent to the Flatté parameterization. We add to the
above width in the K − p channel, a width for its decay to the dominant Σ + π − channel,
Γ(m) = Γ(m)K − p +Γ(m)Σπ , where q in the second term and q0 in both terms are calculated
assuming the decay to Σ + π − . Assuming that both channels are dynamically equally likely
and differ only by the phase space factors we set Γ0 to the total width of Λ(1405) in both
terms.
Angular momentum conservation limits LΛn∗ to JΛn∗ ± 12 , which is then uniquely defined
by parity conservation in the Λn∗ decay, PΛn∗ = (−1)LΛn∗ +1 . Angular momentum conservation
∗ Λ∗
also requires max(JΛn∗ − 23 , 0) ≤ LΛΛ0 ≤ JΛn∗ + 32 . We assume the minimal value of LΛn0 in
b b
RΛn∗ (mKp ).
The electromagnetic decay ψ → µ+ µ− is described by a term
Dλ1ψ , ∆λµ (φµ , θψ , 0)∗ , (35)
where ∆λµ ≡ λµ+ − λµ− = ±1, and φµ , θψ are the azimuthal and polar angles of µ+ for
Λ0b (µ− for Λ0b decays) in the ψ rest frame (see Fig. 15). There are no helicity couplings in
Eq. (35), since they are all equal due to conservation of C and P parities. Therefore, this
coupling can be set to unity as its magnitude and phase can be absorbed into the other
helicity couplings which are left free in the fit. The calculation of the ψ decay angles is
analogous to that of the Λ∗ decay angles described above (Eqs. (28)–(30))
{ψ}
cos θψ = − p̂Λ∗ · p̂µ{ψ} , (36)

{ψ} {ψ} {ψ} {ψ} {ψ}
φµ = atan2 −(p̂Λ∗ × x̂0 ) · p̂µ , x̂0 · p̂µ , (37)
with
{ψ} {Λ∗} {Λ0b}
x̂0 = x̂0 = x̂3 (38)
{Λ0}
and x̂3 b given by Eq. (29).
Collecting terms from the subsequent decays together, the matrix element connecting
different helicity states of the initial and the final-state particles for the entire Λ∗ decay
chain can be written as
∗ Λ∗ →Kp
X X
MλΛ 0 , λp , ∆λµ = RΛn∗ (mKp ) Hλnp ei λψ φµ dλ1ψ ,∆λµ (θψ )
Λ
b
n λψ
1
Λ0b →Λn∗ ψ J ∗
X
× H λΛ∗ , λψ ei λΛ∗ φK dλ2 0 , λΛ∗ −λψ (θΛ0b ) dλΛΛ∗n, λp (θΛ∗ ). (39)
Λ
b
λΛ∗
29
Terms with different helicities of the initial and final-state particles (λp , ∆λµ ) must be
added incoherently
Λ∗ 2 1 + PΛ0b X X 2 1 − PΛ0b X X 2
M = M(λΛ0 =+1/2), λp , ∆λµ +

M(λΛ0 =−1/2), λp , ∆λµ ,

2 λ ∆λ
b 2 λ ∆λ
b
p µ p µ
(40)
0
where PΛb is the Λ0b polarization, defined as the difference of probabilities for λΛ0b = +1/2
and −1/2 [42]. For our choice of the quantization axis for Λ0b spin, no polarization is
0
expected (PΛb = 0) from parity conservation in strong interactions which dominate Λ0b
production at LHCb.
4.3 Matrix element for the Pc+ decay chain

We now turn to the discussion of Λ0b → Pcj K − , Pcj → ψp decays, in which we allow more
than one pentaquark state, j = 1, 2, . . . . Superscripts containing the Pc decay chain name
without curly brackets, e.g. φ Pc , will denote quantities belonging to this decay chain and
should not be confused with the superscript “{Pc }” denoting the Pc+ rest frame, e.g. φ {Pc } .
With only a few exceptions, we omit the Λ∗ decay chain label.
The weak decay Λ0b → Pcj K − is described by the term,
1
Λ0 →Pcj K
HλPbc Dλ2 0 , λPc (φPc , θΛPc0 , 0)∗ , (41)
Λ b
b
Λ0 →P K
where HλPbc cj are resonance (i.e. j) dependent helicity couplings. The helicity of the
pentaquark state, λPc , can take values of ± 12 independently of its spin, JPcj = 12 , 32 , . . . .
Therefore, there are two independent helicity couplings to be determined for each Pcj state.
Λb rest frame
ψ rest frame φP−π
K
c
−
θψP μ−−
c
− Pc θΛP c
μ b
μ+ + ψ ψ p Λ*
μ θ
P pc φψP −π c
φμP −π P rest frame

c
c
ψ Λ*
Λb
lab frame
Figure 16: Definition of the decay angles in the Pc+ decay chain.
30
The above mentioned φPc , θΛPc0 symbols refer to the azimuthal and polar angles of Pc in
b
the Λ0b rest frame (see Fig. 16).
Similar to Eq. (25), the Λ0b helicity angle in the Pc decay chain can be calculated as,
{lab} {Λ0}
cos θΛPc0 = p̂Λ0 · p̂Pc b . (42)
b b
{Λ0}
The φPc angle cannot be set to zero, since we have already defined the x̂0 b axis in the
{Λ0} {Λ0}
Λ0b rest frame by the φΛ∗ = 0 convention. According to Eq. (18) (x0 b = x1 b ) we have:
{Λ0} {Λ0} {Λ0} {lab} {lab}
~aΛ∗ ⊥z
b
0
= p~Λ∗ b − (~pΛ∗ b · p̂Λ0 ) p̂Λ0 ,
b b
{Λ0b}
{Λ0b} ~aΛ∗ ⊥z 0
x̂0 = {Λ0b}
. (43)
| ~aΛ∗ ⊥z0 |
The φPc angle can be determined in the Λ0b rest frame from
{Λ0} {Λ0} {Λ0} {Λ0}

{lab}
φPc = atan2 (p̂Λ0 × x̂0 b ) · p̂Pc b , x̂0 b · p̂Pc b . (44)
b
The strong decay Pcj → ψp is described by a term
P →ψp JPc j
HλPcjc ,λPc Dλ Pc Pc (φψ , θPc , 0)∗ RPcj (Mψp ), (45)
ψ p Pc , λψ −λp
where φPψc , θPc are the azimuthal and polar angles of the ψ in the Pc rest frame (see Fig. 16).
{P }
They are defined analogously to Eqs. (28)−(30). The ẑ0 c direction is defined by the
{P }
boost direction from the Λ0b rest frame, which coincides with the −~pK c direction. This
leads to
{P } {P }
cos θPc = −p̂K c · p̂ψ c . (46)
The azimuthal angle of the ψ can now be determined in the Pc rest frame (see Fig. 16)
from
Pc {Pc} {Pc} {Pc} {Pc} {Pc}
φψ = atan2 −(p̂K × x̂0 ) · p̂ψ , x̂0 · p̂ψ . (47)
{P }
In Eq. (45), the x̂0 c direction is defined by the convention that we used in the Λ0b
rest frame. Thus, similar to Eq. (29) we have
{Λ0} {lab} {lab} {Λ0} {Λ0}
~az0 ⊥P
b
c
= p̂Λ0 − (p̂Λ0 · p̂Pc b ) p̂Pc b ,
b b
{Λ0b}
{Pc} ~az0 ⊥P
x̂0 = − {Λ0b}
c
. (48)
| ~az0 ⊥Pc |
We have labeled the ψ and p helicities, λPψc and λPp c , with the Pc superscript to make it
clear that the spin quantization axes are different than in the Λ∗ decay chain. Since the
31
Λb rest frame
Λ* rest frame
K
−
K K
− −
Pc rest frame Pc Λ*
p p
ψ
ψ p
p
ψ θp K
z0{p}Λ
∗ z0{p}Pc
p rest frame
Figure 17: Definition of the θp angle.
ψ is an intermediate particle, this has no consequences after we sum (coherently) over

λPψc = −1, 0, +1. The proton, however, is a final-state particle. Before the Pc terms in the
matrix element can be added coherently to the Λ∗ terms, the λPp c states must be rotated to
λp states (defined in the Λ∗ decay chain). The proton helicity axes are different, since the
proton comes from a decay of different particles in the two decay sequences, the Λ∗ and
Pc . The quantization axes are along the proton direction in the Λ∗ and the Pc rest frames,
thus antiparallel to the particles recoiling against the proton: the K − and ψ, respectively.
These directions are preserved when boosting to the proton rest frame (see Fig. 17). Thus,
the polar angle between the two proton quantization axes (θp ) can be determined from
the opening angle between the K − and ψ mesons in the p rest frame,
{p} {p}
cos θp = p̂K · p̂ψ . (49)
(A similar problem is discussed in Ref. [43], where the two different χc1 helicity frames
in B 0 → K + π − χc1 decays, in the interference of B 0 → K ∗ χc1 , K ∗ → K + π − and of
B 0 → Z − K + , Z − → χc1 π − contributions, are realigned.) The dot product above must be
{p} {p}
calculated by operating on the p~K and p~ψ vectors in the proton rest frame obtained by
the same sequence of boost transformations, either according to the Λ∗ or Pc decay chains,
or even by a direct boost transformation from the lab frame.7
No azimuthal rotation is needed to align the two proton helicity frames, since the decay
planes of the Λ∗ and the Pc are the same (see Fig. 17). Therefore, the relation between λp
and λpPc states is
X J
X J
|λp i = DλPpc , λ (0, θp , 0)∗ |λPp c i = dλPpc , λ (θp )|λPp c i. (50)
p p p p
λP
p
c λP
p
c
7
Numerical values of momentum vector components, (px , py , pz ), depend on the boost sequence taken
and are related between different boosts via the rotation matrix. However, the dot product between the
two vectors remains independent of the boost sequences.
32
Thus, the term given by Eq. (45) must be preceded by
X J
dλPpc , λ (θp ). (51)
p p
λPc 1
p =± 2
Parity conservation in Pcj → ψp decays leads to the following relation

P →ψp P →ψp
cj
H−λ Pc
,−λPc
= Pψ Pp PPcj (−1)Jψ +Jp −JPc j HλPcjc , λPc
ψ p ψ p
1 Pcj →ψp
−JPc j
= PPcj (−1) 2 HλPc , λPc , (52)
ψ p
where PPcj is the parity of the Pcj state. This relation reduces the number of inde-
pendent helicity couplings to be determined from the data to 2 for JPcj = 12 and 3 for
JPcj ≥ 32 . Since the helicity couplings enter the matrix element formula as a product,
Λ0 →Pcj K P →ψp
HλPbc HλPcjc , λPc , the relative magnitude and phase of these two sets must be fixed by a
ψ p
Λ0 →Pcj K
convention. For example, Hλ b 1 can be set to (1, 0) for every Pcj resonance, in which
Pc =− 2
Λ0 →Pcj K Λ0 →Pcj K Λ0b →Pcj K
case Hλ b 1 develops a meaning of the complex ratio of Hλ b 1 /H 1 , while all
Pc =+ 2 Pc =+ 2
λ Pc =− 2
Pcj →ψp
HλPc , λPc couplings should have both real and imaginary parts free in the fit.
ψ p
The term RPcj (Mψp ) describes the ψp invariant mass distribution of the Pcj resonance
and is given by Eq. (31) after appropriate substitutions. Angular momentum conservation
P −
limits LΛcj 0
0 in Λb → Pcj K decays to JPcj ± 12 . The angular momentum conservation also
b
imposes max(JPcj − 32 , 0) ≤ LPcj ≤ JPcj + 32 , which is further restricted by the parity
P
conservation in the Pcj decays, PPcj = (−1)LPc j +1 . We assume the minimal values of LΛcj
0
b
and of LPcj in RPcj (mψp ).
The electromagnetic decay ψ → µ+ µ− in the Pc decay chain contributes a term
Dλ1Pc , ∆λPc (φPµc , θψPc , 0)∗ , (53)
ψ µ
which is the same as Eq. (35), except that since the ψ meson comes from the decay of
different particles in the two decay chains, the azimuthal and polar angle of the muon in
the ψ rest frame, φPµc , θψPc , are different from φµ , θψ introduced in the Λ∗ decay chain. The
ψ helicity axis is along the boost direction from the Pc to the ψ rest frames, which is given
by
{ψ}
ẑ0 Pc = − p̂p{ψ} , (54)
and so
cos θψPc = −p̂p{ψ} · p̂µ{ψ} . (55)
The x axis is inherited from the Pc rest frame (Eq. (19)),
{P }
c {Pc} {Pc} {Pc} {Pc}
~az0 ⊥ψ = −~pK + (~pK · p̂ψ ) p̂ψ
{P }
c
{ψ} {P } ~az0 ⊥ψ
x̂0 Pc = x̂3 c = − {P }
c
, (56)
| ~az0 ⊥ψ |
33
which leads to

{ψ} {ψ} Pc
φPµc = atan2 −(p̂p{ψ} × x̂0 Pc
) · p̂µ{ψ} , x̂0 · p̂µ{ψ} . (57)
Since the muons are final-state particles, their helicity states in the Pc decay chain,
|λPµc i, need to be rotated to the muon helicity states in the Λ∗ decay chain, |λµ i, before
the Pc matrix element terms can be coherently added to the Λ∗ matrix element terms.
The situation is simpler than for the rotation of the proton helicities discussed above, as
the muons come from the ψ decay in both decay chains. This makes the polar angle θµ
1
(analogous to θp in Eq. (51)) equal to zero, which leads to dλ2Pc , λ (0) = δλPµc , λµ , where δi,j
µ µ
is the Kronecker symbol. However, the muon helicity states are not identical since the x
axes are offset by the azimuthal angle αµ . Since the boost to the µ rest frame is the same
for both decay chains (i.e. always from the ψ rest frame), we can determine αµ in the ψ
rest frame
{ψ} {ψ} Pc {ψ} Λ∗ {ψ} Pc {ψ} Λ∗
αµ = atan2 (ẑ3 × x̂3 ) · x̂3 , x̂3 · x̂3 , (58)
{ψ} {ψ}
where ẑ3 = p̂µ , and from Eq. (19)
{ψ} Pc {ψ} Pc
x̂3 = − âz0 ⊥µ , (59)
{ψ}
~az0 ⊥µ Pc = − p̂p{ψ} + (p̂p{ψ} · p̂µ{ψ} ) p̂µ{ψ} , (60)
as well as
{ψ} Λ∗ {ψ} Λ∗
x̂3 = − âz0 ⊥µ , (61)
{ψ} Λ∗ {ψ} {ψ}
~az0 ⊥µ = − p̂Λ∗ + (p̂Λ∗ · p̂µ{ψ} ) p̂µ{ψ} . (62)
The term aligning the muon helicity states between the two reference frames is given by
X J X Pc
DλPµc λ (αµ , 0, 0)∗ = ei λµ αµ δλPµc , λµ = ei λµ αµ . (63)
µ µ
λP
µ
c λP
µ
c
The transformation of µ− states will be similar to that of the µ+ states, except that since
ẑψ will have the opposite direction, αµ+ = −αµ− . The transformation of |λPµ+c i|λPµ−c i to
|λµ+ i|λµ− i states will require multiplying the terms for the Pc decay chain by
ei λµ αµ ei λµ̄ αµ̄ = ei (λµ −λµ̄ )αµ = ei ∆λµ αµ . (64)
An alternative derivation of Eq. (64) is discussed in Ref. [7] (Eqs. (20)−(22) therein) for
the interference of B 0 → K ∗ ψ, K ∗ → Kπ and of B 0 → ZK − , Z → ψπ (ψ → `+ `− ) terms,
which are analogous to the two decay chains discussed here with the substitution B 0 → Λ0b ,
K ∗ → Λ∗ , Z → Pc and π → p. The rotation by αµ about the `+ direction in the ψ rest
frame in the Z decay chain is incorporated by setting γ = αµ , instead of γ = 0 in Eq. (53).
This leads to the same formulae since
Dλ1Pc , ∆λµ (φPµc , θψPc , αµ )∗ = Dλ1Pc , ∆λµ (φµPc , θψPc , 0)∗ ei ∆λµ αµ . (65)
ψ ψ
34
We use the more generic derivation here to demonstrate that the methods of transforming
the muon and proton helicity states between the two decay chains are the same.
Collecting terms from the three subsequent decays in the Pc chain together,
i λ 0 φP X X Pc Pc
MλPc , λPc , ∆λPc =e Λb c RPcj (Mψp ) ei λψ φµ dλ1Pc , ∆λµ (θψPc )
Λ0 p µ ψ
b j λP
ψ
c
1 JPc j
Λ0 →Pcj K Pc P →ψp
X
× HλPbc ei λPc φψ dλ2 0 , λPc (θΛPc0 )HλPcjc , λPc dλ Pc Pc (θPc ), (66)
Λ
b b ψ p Pc , λψ −λp
λPc
and adding them coherently to the Λ∗ matrix element, via appropriate relation of
|λp i|λµ+ i|λµ− i to |λPp c i|λPµ+c i|λPµ−c i states as discussed above, leads to the final matrix
element squared
2

X X X ∗
X 1
2
P

|M| = MΛλ , λ , ∆λ + ei ∆λµ αµ d 2
P c (θp ) M c
P c
,
Λ0 p µ λp , λ p λΛ0 , λp , ∆λµ
b b
λ 0 =± 1 λp =± 1 ∆λµ =±1 λPc

Λ 2 2 p
b
(67)
Λ0b
where we set P = 0. As a cross-check, fitting the Λ0b
polarization to the data with
0
the default Λ∗ and Pc+ model yields a value consistent with zero, PΛb = (−2.0 ± 2.3)%
(statistical error only).
Assuming approximate CP symmetry, the helicity couplings for Λ0b and Λ0b can be made
equal, but the calculation of the angles requires some care, since parity (P ) conservation
does not change polar (i.e. helicity) angles, but does change azimuthal angles. Thus, not
only must p~µ+ be used instead of p~µ− for Λ0b candidates (with K + and p̄ in the final-state)
in Eqs. (36), (37), (55), (57) and (58), but also all azimuthal angles must be reflected before
entering the matrix element formula: φK → −φK , φµ → −φµ , φPc → −φPc , φPψc → −φPψc ,
φPµc → −φPµc and αµ → −αµ [7].
It is clear from Eq. (67) that various Λn∗ and Pc resonances interfere in the differential
distributions. By integrating the matrix element squared over the entire phase space the
interferences cancel in the integrated rates unless the resonances belong to the same decay
chain and have the same quantum numbers.8
4.4 Reduction of the number of helicity couplings

A possible reduction of the helicity couplings can be achieved by relating them to the LS
couplings (BL,S ) using Clebsch-Gordan coefficients

A→B C
XXq
2L+1 JB JC S L S JA
HλB ,λC = B
2JA +1 L,S
× ,
λB −λC λB − λC 0 λB − λC λB − λC
L S
(68)
8
For Λn∗ −Pc , the λΛ0b = +1/2 interference terms have the opposite effect to the λΛ0b = −1/2 interference
terms.
35
and then restricting the L values. Here L is the orbital angular momentum in the decay,
~ = J~B + J~C (|JB − JC | ≤ S ≤ JB + JC ). If the
and S is the total spin of the daughters, S
energy release in the decay, Q = MA − MB − MC , is small, Q/MA 1, then higher values
of L should be suppressed; this effect is usually called “the angular momentum barrier.”
Λ∗
Applying this approach to Λ0b → ψΛn∗ decays, the lowest LΛn0 value (Lmin ) corresponds to a
b
single possible value of S, thus reducing the number of couplings to fit, from 4 (JΛn∗ = 12 )
or 6 (JΛn∗ ≥ 32 ), to just one BL,S coupling per resonance. Accepting also Lmin + 1 values,
gives three BL,S couplings to fit per resonance.
P Pcj
In Λ0b → Pcj K − decays, S = JPcj and LΛcj 1
0 = JPcj ± 2 . Taking only the lower LΛ0
b b
value reduces the number of couplings from 2 to 1. Since its magnitude and phase
P →ψp
convention can be absorbed into HλPcjc , λPc (see the discussion in Sec. 4.3), one can simply
ψ p
Λ0 →P K
set BJ b −cj
1
,J
= (1, 0) in this approach.
Pc j 2 Pc j
The reduction of couplings to fit for Pcj → ψp decays depends on the spin and parity
of the Pcj state. S can take values of 12 and 32 . Values of LPcj must be odd (even) for even
+
(odd) PPcj . For a JPPcj = 12 state, only LPcj = 1 is allowed with the two possible values of
−
S. Therefore, no reduction of couplings is possible. For a JPPcj = 12 state, LPcj = 0, 2 are
allowed, each corresponding to one S value. Therefore, the number of couplings to fit can
be reduced from 2 to 1 when taking LPcj = 0. Gains can be larger for JPcj ≥ 23 states.
Even if no reduction in parameters is achieved, expressing the helicity couplings via
corresponding BL,S couplings using Eq. (68) is useful, since it automatically implements the
parity constraints (Eq. (52)) by restricting possible L values. Since the overall magnitude
of the matrix element does not affect the normalized signal PDF, and because its overall
phase also drops out when taking its modulus, we fix the magnitude and phase convention
Λ0 →Λ(1520)J/ψ
by setting B0,b1 = (1, 0).
2
5 Details of fitting techniques

The matrix element given by Eq. (67), is a 6-dimensional (6D) function of mKp and
Ω and depends on the fit parameters, → −
ω , which represent independent helicity or LS
couplings, and possibly masses and widths of resonances, M(mKp , Ω|→ −ω ). We perform
an unbinned maximum likelihood fit of these parameters to the 6D data by minimizing
→
− P →
− →
−
−2 ln L( ω ) = −2 ln i P(mKp i , Ωi | ω ) with respect to ω . The signal PDF is obtained
by multiplying the matrix element squared with the selection efficiency, (mKp , Ω),
1
Psig (mKp , Ω|→
− |M(mKp , Ω|→
− 2
ω) = →
− ω )| Φ(mKp )(mKp , Ω), (69)
I( ω )
where Φ(mKp ) is the phase space function equal to p q, where p is the momentum of the
Kp system (i.e. Λ∗ ) in the Λ0b rest frame, and q is the momentum of K − in the Λ∗ rest
frame, and I(→
−
ω ) is the normalization integral.
36
We use two fit algorithms that were independently coded and that differ in the approach
used for background subtraction. The sFit procedure uses the sPlot technique described in
Ref. [29] to subtract background from the log-likelihood sum. It has been used in previous
LHCb analyses, e.g. measurement of φs in Bs0 → J/ψ φ decays [44]. The data in the entire
5480 − 5760 MeV range are passed to the fitter. Candidates are assigned “sWeights” (Wi )
according to their mJ/ψ pK value with the signal and background probabilities determined
by the fit to the mJ/ψ pK distribution,
− 2 ln L(→
− Wi ln P(mKp i , Ωi |→
−
X
ω ) = −2sW ω ), (70)
i
where sW ≡ i Wi / i Wi 2 is a constant factor accounting for the effect of the background

P P
subtraction on the statistical uncertainty. Candidates in the sideband region have negative
sWeights which on average compensate for the background events present in the peak
region, where events have positive sWeights. From signal simulations, we see significant
variations of Λ0b → J/ψ pK − invariant mass resolution as functions of cos θΛ0b and cos θJ/ψ .
The background distributions also vary in intensity and shape with these two variables. No
strong variation is seen for the other fitting observables. To determine the sWeights, the
events are divided into 4 | cos θJ/ψ | × 8 cos θΛ0b bins. A separate fit to the Λ0b → J/ψ pK −
invariant mass distribution of each bin is performed.
In the sFit approach the total PDF is equal to the signal PDF, as the background is
subtracted from the log-likelihood sum using sWeights,
−2 ln L(→− Wi ln Psig (mKp i , Ωi |→

−
X
ω ) = − 2sW ω)
i
Wi ln |M(mKp i , Ωi |→
−
ω )|2 + 2sW ln I(→
−
X X
= − 2sW ω) Wi
i i
X
− 2sW Wi ln[Φ(mKp i )(mKp i , Ωi )]. (71)
i
The last term does not depend on the fitted parameters → −

ω and is therefore dropped. The
efficiency still appears in the normalization integral. The integration is done without the
need to parameterize the efficiency, by summing the matrix element squared over the
simulated events that are generated uniformly in phase space and passed through the
detector modeling and the data selection procedure,
Z
→
−
I( ω ) ≡ |M(mKp , Ω|→− 2
ω )| Φ(mKp )(mKp , Ω) dmKp dΩ
NMC
wjMC |M(mKp j , Ωj |→
− 2
X
∝ ω )| , (72)
j
where wjMC are the weights given to the simulated events to improve the agreement between
data and simulations. They include particle identification weights obtained from calibration
samples of Λ → pπ − and D0 → K − π + as functions of momentum and pseudorapidity of
37
the protons and kaons. They also include a weight correcting the overall efficiency for the
dependence on the charged track multiplicity of events, determined from the ratio of the
background-subtracted data and the signal simulations. Imperfect description of the Λ0b
production kinematics in our simulation is corrected in a similar way via a weight that
depends on the p and pT of the Λ0b baryon. The final weights are the ratio of the data and
the simulations as a function of proton and kaon momenta.
In the cFit approach, candidates are not weighted (Wi = 1). The data that are fitted
are restricted to be within a ±2σ mass window around the Λ0b mass peak, in the interval
5605.7 < mJ/ψ pK < 5635.8 MeV. The background is represented explicitly in the fitted
PDF, with the integrated background probability set to β = 5.4% as determined from the
fit to the J/ψ K − p mass distribution,
P(mKp , Ω|→
−
ω ) = (1 − β) Psig (mKp , Ω|→
−
ω ) + β Pbkg (mKp , Ω). (73)
The 6-dimensional background parameterization Pbkg (mKp , Ω) is developed using the

background sample in which the Λ0b candidate invariant mass is more than 5σ away from
the peak, specifically within the intervals 5480.0 − 5583.2 MeV and 5658.3 − 5760.0 MeV.
We minimize the negative log-likelihood defined as,
− 2 ln L(→
−
ω) =
|M(mKp i , Ωi |→
−
" 2
#
u
X ω )| Φ(mKp i )(mKp i , Ωi ) Pbkg (mKp i , Ωi )
−2 ln (1 − β) +β
i
I(→−
ω) Ibkg
β I(→
− u
Pbkg (mKp i , Ωi )

ω)
ln |M(mKp i , Ωi |→
− 2
X
= −2 ω )| +
i
(1 − β)Ibkg Φ(mKp i )(mKp i , Ωi )
+ 2N ln I(→
−
ω ) + constant, (74)
u
where N is the number of candidates, and Pbkg (mKp , Ω) is the unnormalized background
density proportional to the density of sideband candidates, with its normalization deter-
mined by9
u
Pbkg (mKp j , Ωj )
Z X
u
Ibkg ≡ Pbkg (mKp ) dmKp dΩ ∝ wjMC . (75)
j
Φ(m Kp j )(mKp j , Ωj )
The background term is then efficiency-corrected so it can be added to the efficiency-

independent signal probability expressed by |M|2 . This way the efficiency parametrization,
(mKp , Ω), influences only the background component which affects only a tiny part of
the total PDF, while the efficiency corrections to the signal part enter Eq. (72).
The efficiency in the background term is assumed to factorize as
(mKp , Ω) = 1 (mKp , cos θΛ∗ )2 (cos θΛ0b |mKp )3 (cos θJ/ψ |mKp )4 (φK |mKp )5 (φµ |mKp ).
(76)
9
Note that the distribution of MC events includes both the Φ(mKp ) and (mKp , Ω) factors, which
cancel their product in the numerator.
38
The 1 (mKp , cos θΛ∗ ) term is obtained from a 2D histogram of the simulated events weighted
by 1/(p q). A bi-cubic interpolation is used to interpolate between bin centers. The other
terms are again built from 2D histograms, but with each bin divided by the number of
simulated events in the corresponding mKp slice to remove the leading dependence on this
mass, which is already taken into account in the first term. The leading variation of the
efficiency is in the 1 (mKp , cos θΛ∗ ) term which is visualized in the normal Dalitz variables
(m2J/ψ p , m2Kp ) in Fig. 18(a) instead of the “rectangular Dalitz plane” variables (mKp , cos θΛ∗ )
used to parameterize this variation.
u
The background PDF, Pbkg (mKp , Ω)/Φ(mKp ), is built using the same approach,
u
Pbkg (mKp , Ω)
= Pbkg 1 (mKp , cos θΛ∗ )Pbkg 2 (cos θΛ0b |mKp )
Φ(mKp )
× Pbkg 3 (cos θJ/ψ |mKp )Pbkg 4 (φK |mKp )Pbkg 5 (φµ |mKp ). (77)
A visualization of Pbkg 1 (mKp , cos θΛ∗ ) on the Dalitz plane is shown in Fig. 18(b).
m J/ ψ p2 [GeV2]
m J/ ψ p2 [GeV2]
(a) efficiency (b) background 2.5

26 1.2 26
LHCb 1
LHCb 2
24 24
0.8
22 22 1.5
0.6
20 20 1
0.4
18 18 0.5
0.2
16 16
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
2
m Kp2 [GeV ] m Kp2 [GeV2]
Figure 18: Parameterized dependence of (a) the relative signal efficiency and of (b) the background
density on the Dalitz plane. The units of the relative efficiency and of the relative background
density are arbitrary.
39
References
[1] M. Gell-Mann, A schematic model of baryons and mesons, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 214.
2
[2] R. L. Jaffe, Multiquark hadrons. I. Phenomenology of Q2 Q mesons, Phys. Rev. D15
(1977) 267.
[3] D. Strottman, Multi-quark baryons and the MIT bag model, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979)
748.
[4] H. J. Lipkin, New possibilities for exotic hadrons: Anticharmed strange baryons, Phys.
Lett. B195 (1987) 484.
[5] K. H. Hicks, On the conundrum of the pentaquark, Eur. Phys. J. H37 (2012) 1.
[6] Belle collaboration, S. K. Choi et al., Observation of a resonance-like structure in the

π ± ψ 0 mass distribution in exclusive B → Kπ ± ψ 0 decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008)
142001, arXiv:0708.1790.
[7] Belle collaboration, K. Chilikin et al., Experimental constraints on the spin and parity
of the Z(4430)+ , Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 074026, arXiv:1306.4894.
[8] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of the resonant character of the
Z(4430)− state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 222002, arXiv:1404.1903.
[9] X.-Q. Li and X. Liu, A possible global group structure for exotic states, Eur. Phys. J.
C74 (2014) 3198, arXiv:1409.3332.
[10] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of the ratio of the Λ0b to
0
B lifetimes, Phys. Lett. B734 (2014) 122, arXiv:1402.6242; LHCb collaboration,
R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of the Λ0b baryon lifetime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111
(2013) 102003, arXiv:1307.2476.
[11] Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al., Review of particle physics, Chin. Phys. C38
(2014) 090001.
[12] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3
(2008) S08005.
[13] R. Aaij et al., Performance of the LHCb Vertex Locator, JINST 9 (2014) P09007,
arXiv:1405.7808.
[14] R. Arink et al., Performance of the LHCb Outer Tracker, JINST 9 (2014) P01002,
arXiv:1311.3893.
[15] M. Adinolfi et al., Performance of the LHCb RICH detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys.
J. C73 (2013) 2431, arXiv:1211.6759.
40
[16] A. A. Alves Jr. et al., Performance of the LHCb muon system, JINST 8 (2013) P02022,
arXiv:1211.1346.
[17] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., First observation of Bs0 → J/ψf0 (980) decays,
Phys. Lett. B698 (2011) 115, arXiv:1102.0206.
[18] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and regres-

sion trees, Wadsworth international group, Belmont, California, USA, 1984; A. Hoecker
et al., TMVA – Toolkit for multivariate data analysis, arXiv:physics/0703039.
[19] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP
05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175; T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,
A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852,
arXiv:0710.3820.
[20] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb
simulation framework, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032047.
[21] Geant4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum.
Meth. A506 (2003) 250; Geant4 collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments
and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270.
[22] M. Clemencic et al., The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: Design, evolution and
experience, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 331 (2011) 032023.
[23] D. Martı́nez Santos and F. Dupertuis, Mass distributions marginalized over per-event
errors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A764 (2014) 150, arXiv:1312.5000.
[24] W. D. Hulsbergen, Decay chain fitting with a Kalman filter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.
A552 (2005) 566, arXiv:physics/0503191.
[25] R. H. Dalitz, On the analysis of τ -meson data and the nature of the τ -meson, Phil.
Mag. 44 (1953) 1068.
[26] S. U. Chung, Spin formalisms, CERN-71-08; J. D. Richman, An experimenter’s

guide to the helicity formalism, CALT-68-1148; M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, On the
general theory of collisions for particles with spin, Annals Phys. 7 (1959) 404.
[27] F. Von Hippel and C. Quigg, Centrifugal-barrier effects in resonance partial decay
widths, shapes, and production amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D5 (1972) 624.
[28] S. M. Flatté, Coupled-channel analysis of the πη and KK systems near KK threshold,

Phys. Lett. B63 (1976) 224.
[29] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, sPlot: A statistical tool to unfold data distributions,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555 (2005) 356, arXiv:physics/0402083.
41
[30] F. James, Statistical methods in experimental physics, World Scientific Publishing,
2006.
[31] J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, W. A. Ponce, and B. R. Holstein, Analysis of ∆S=1

nonleptonic weak decays and the ∆I=1/2 rule, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 186.
[32] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of overlapping spin-1 and spin-
3 D̄0 K − resonances at mass 2.86 GeV/c2 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 162001,
arXiv:1407.7574; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Dalitz plot analysis of Bs0 →
D̄0 K − π + decays, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 072003, arXiv:1407.7712.
[33] R. L. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Diquarks and exotic spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91
(2003) 232003, arXiv:hep-ph/0307341.
[34] A. Chandra, A. Bhattacharya, and B. Chakrabarti, Heavy pentaquarks and doubly

heavy baryons in quasiparticle approach, Mod. Phys. Lett. A27 (2012) 1250006.
[35] M. Karliner and H. J. Lipkin, A diquark - triquark model for the KN pentaquark,
Phys. Lett. B575 (2003) 249, arXiv:hep-ph/0402260.
[36] J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Prediction of narrow N ∗ and Λ∗
resonances with hidden charm above 4 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 232001,
arXiv:1007.0573.
[37] M. B. Voloshin and L. B. Okun, Hadron molecules and charmonium atom, JETP Lett.
23 (1976) 333; A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Molecular charmonium:
a new spectroscopy?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 317; N. A. Törnqvist, Possible large
deuteron–like meson meson states bound by pions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 556;
N. A. Törnqvist, From the deuteron to deusons, an analysis of deuteron–like meson
meson bound states, Z. Phys. C61 (1994) 525, arXiv:hep-ph/9310247; M. Karliner
and J. L. Rosner, New exotic meson and baryon resonances from doubly-heavy hadronic
molecules, arXiv:1506.06386.
[38] E. S. Swanson, Cusps and exotic charmonia, arXiv:1504.07952.
[39] E. S. Swanson, Zb and Zc exotic states as coupled channel cusps, Phys. Rev. D91
(2015) 034009, arXiv:1409.3291.
[40] D. V. Bugg, An explanation of Belle states Zb (10610) and Zb (10650), Europhys. Lett.
96 (2011) 11002, arXiv:1105.5492.
[41] J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Springer-Verlag, 1979.
[42] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurements

√ of the Λ0b → J/ψΛ decay amplitudes
0
and the Λb polarization in pp collisions at s = 7 TeV, Phys. Lett. B724 (2013) 27,
arXiv:1302.5578.
42
[43] Belle collaboration, R. Mizuk et al., Observation of two resonance-like structures in
the π + χc1 mass distribution in exclusive B̄ 0 → K − π + χc1 decays, Phys. Rev. D78
(2008) 072004, arXiv:0806.4098.
[44] LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of CP violation in Bs0 → J/ψK + K −

decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 041801, arXiv:1411.3104.
43
LHCb collaboration
R. Aaij38 , B. Adeva37 , M. Adinolfi46 , A. Affolder52 , Z. Ajaltouni5 , S. Akar6 , J. Albrecht9 ,
F. Alessio38 , M. Alexander51 , S. Ali41 , G. Alkhazov30 , P. Alvarez Cartelle53 , A.A. Alves Jr57 ,
S. Amato2 , S. Amerio22 , Y. Amhis7 , L. An3 , L. Anderlini17 , J. Anderson40 , G. Andreassi39 ,
M. Andreotti16,f , J.E. Andrews58 , R.B. Appleby54 , O. Aquines Gutierrez10 , F. Archilli38 ,
P. d’Argent11 , A. Artamonov35 , M. Artuso59 , E. Aslanides6 , G. Auriemma25,m , M. Baalouch5 ,
S. Bachmann11 , J.J. Back48 , A. Badalov36 , C. Baesso60 , W. Baldini16,38 , R.J. Barlow54 ,
C. Barschel38 , S. Barsuk7 , W. Barter38 , V. Batozskaya28 , V. Battista39 , A. Bay39 , L. Beaucourt4 ,
J. Beddow51 , F. Bedeschi23 , I. Bediaga1 , L.J. Bel41 , V. Bellee39 , N. Belloli20 , I. Belyaev31 ,
E. Ben-Haim8 , G. Bencivenni18 , S. Benson38 , J. Benton46 , A. Berezhnoy32 , R. Bernet40 ,
A. Bertolin22 , M.-O. Bettler38 , M. van Beuzekom41 , A. Bien11 , S. Bifani45 , P. Billoir8 , T. Bird54 ,
A. Birnkraut9 , A. Bizzeti17,h , T. Blake48 , F. Blanc39 , J. Blouw10 , S. Blusk59 , V. Bocci25 ,
A. Bondar34 , N. Bondar30,38 , W. Bonivento15 , S. Borghi54 , M. Borsato7 , T.J.V. Bowcock52 ,
E. Bowen40 , C. Bozzi16 , S. Braun11 , M. Britsch10 , T. Britton59 , J. Brodzicka54 , N.H. Brook46 ,
A. Bursche40 , J. Buytaert38 , S. Cadeddu15 , R. Calabrese16,f , M. Calvi20,j , M. Calvo Gomez36,o ,
P. Campana18 , D. Campora Perez38 , L. Capriotti54 , A. Carbone14,d , G. Carboni24,k ,
R. Cardinale19,i , A. Cardini15 , P. Carniti20 , L. Carson50 , K. Carvalho Akiba2,38 , G. Casse52 ,
L. Cassina20,j , L. Castillo Garcia38 , M. Cattaneo38 , Ch. Cauet9 , G. Cavallero19 , R. Cenci23,s ,
M. Charles8 , Ph. Charpentier38 , M. Chefdeville4 , S. Chen54 , S.-F. Cheung55 , N. Chiapolini40 ,
M. Chrzaszcz40 , X. Cid Vidal38 , G. Ciezarek41 , P.E.L. Clarke50 , M. Clemencic38 , H.V. Cliff47 ,
J. Closier38 , V. Coco38 , J. Cogan6 , E. Cogneras5 , V. Cogoni15,e , L. Cojocariu29 , G. Collazuol22 ,
P. Collins38 , A. Comerma-Montells11 , A. Contu15,38 , A. Cook46 , M. Coombes46 , S. Coquereau8 ,
G. Corti38 , M. Corvo16,f , B. Couturier38 , G.A. Cowan50 , D.C. Craik48 , A. Crocombe48 ,
M. Cruz Torres60 , S. Cunliffe53 , R. Currie53 , C. D’Ambrosio38 , E. Dall’Occo41 , J. Dalseno46 ,
P.N.Y. David41 , A. Davis57 , K. De Bruyn41 , S. De Capua54 , M. De Cian11 , J.M. De Miranda1 ,
L. De Paula2 , P. De Simone18 , C.-T. Dean51 , D. Decamp4 , M. Deckenhoff9 , L. Del Buono8 ,
N. Déléage4 , M. Demmer9 , D. Derkach55 , O. Deschamps5 , F. Dettori38 , B. Dey21 , A. Di Canto38 ,
F. Di Ruscio24 , H. Dijkstra38 , S. Donleavy52 , F. Dordei11 , M. Dorigo39 , A. Dosil Suárez37 ,
D. Dossett48 , A. Dovbnya43 , K. Dreimanis52 , L. Dufour41 , G. Dujany54 , F. Dupertuis39 ,
P. Durante38 , R. Dzhelyadin35 , A. Dziurda26 , A. Dzyuba30 , S. Easo49,38 , U. Egede53 ,
V. Egorychev31 , S. Eidelman34 , S. Eisenhardt50 , U. Eitschberger9 , R. Ekelhof9 , L. Eklund51 ,
I. El Rifai5 , Ch. Elsasser40 , S. Ely59 , S. Esen11 , H.M. Evans47 , T. Evans55 , A. Falabella14 ,
C. Färber38 , N. Farley45 , S. Farry52 , R. Fay52 , D. Ferguson50 , V. Fernandez Albor37 ,
F. Ferrari14 , F. Ferreira Rodrigues1 , M. Ferro-Luzzi38 , S. Filippov33 , M. Fiore16,38,f ,
M. Fiorini16,f , M. Firlej27 , C. Fitzpatrick39 , T. Fiutowski27 , K. Fohl38 , P. Fol53 , M. Fontana15 ,
F. Fontanelli19,i , R. Forty38 , O. Francisco2 , M. Frank38 , C. Frei38 , M. Frosini17 , J. Fu21 ,
E. Furfaro24,k , A. Gallas Torreira37 , D. Galli14,d , S. Gallorini22,38 , S. Gambetta50 ,
M. Gandelman2 , P. Gandini55 , Y. Gao3 , J. Garcı́a Pardiñas37 , J. Garra Tico47 , L. Garrido36 ,
D. Gascon36 , C. Gaspar38 , R. Gauld55 , L. Gavardi9 , G. Gazzoni5 , A. Geraci21,u , D. Gerick11 ,
E. Gersabeck11 , M. Gersabeck54 , T. Gershon48 , Ph. Ghez4 , A. Gianelle22 , S. Gianı̀39 ,
V. Gibson47 , O. G. Girard39 , L. Giubega29 , V.V. Gligorov38 , C. Göbel60 , D. Golubkov31 ,
A. Golutvin53,31,38 , A. Gomes1,a , C. Gotti20,j , M. Grabalosa Gándara5 , R. Graciani Diaz36 ,
L.A. Granado Cardoso38 , E. Graugés36 , E. Graverini40 , G. Graziani17 , A. Grecu29 ,
E. Greening55 , S. Gregson47 , P. Griffith45 , L. Grillo11 , O. Grünberg63 , B. Gui59 , E. Gushchin33 ,
Yu. Guz35,38 , T. Gys38 , T. Hadavizadeh55 , C. Hadjivasiliou59 , G. Haefeli39 , C. Haen38 ,
44
S.C. Haines47 , S. Hall53 , B. Hamilton58 , X. Han11 , S. Hansmann-Menzemer11 , N. Harnew55 ,
S.T. Harnew46 , J. Harrison54 , J. He38 , T. Head39 , V. Heijne41 , K. Hennessy52 , P. Henrard5 ,
L. Henry8 , J.A. Hernando Morata37 , E. van Herwijnen38 , M. Heß63 , A. Hicheur2 , D. Hill55 ,
M. Hoballah5 , C. Hombach54 , W. Hulsbergen41 , T. Humair53 , N. Hussain55 , D. Hutchcroft52 ,
D. Hynds51 , M. Idzik27 , P. Ilten56 , R. Jacobsson38 , A. Jaeger11 , J. Jalocha55 , E. Jans41 ,
A. Jawahery58 , F. Jing3 , M. John55 , D. Johnson38 , C.R. Jones47 , C. Joram38 , B. Jost38 ,
N. Jurik59 , S. Kandybei43 , W. Kanso6 , M. Karacson38 , T.M. Karbach38,† , S. Karodia51 ,
M. Kecke11 , M. Kelsey59 , I.R. Kenyon45 , M. Kenzie38 , T. Ketel42 , B. Khanji20,38,j ,
C. Khurewathanakul39 , S. Klaver54 , K. Klimaszewski28 , O. Kochebina7 , M. Kolpin11 ,
I. Komarov39 , R.F. Koopman42 , P. Koppenburg41,38 , M. Kozeiha5 , L. Kravchuk33 , K. Kreplin11 ,
M. Kreps48 , G. Krocker11 , P. Krokovny34 , F. Kruse9 , W. Krzemien28 , W. Kucewicz26,n ,
M. Kucharczyk26 , V. Kudryavtsev34 , A. K. Kuonen39 , K. Kurek28 , T. Kvaratskheliya31 ,
D. Lacarrere38 , G. Lafferty54 , A. Lai15 , D. Lambert50 , G. Lanfranchi18 , C. Langenbruch48 ,
B. Langhans38 , T. Latham48 , C. Lazzeroni45 , R. Le Gac6 , J. van Leerdam41 , J.-P. Lees4 ,
R. Lefèvre5 , A. Leflat32,38 , J. Lefrançois7 , O. Leroy6 , T. Lesiak26 , B. Leverington11 , Y. Li7 ,
T. Likhomanenko65,64 , M. Liles52 , R. Lindner38 , C. Linn38 , F. Lionetto40 , B. Liu15 , X. Liu3 ,
D. Loh48 , I. Longstaff51 , J.H. Lopes2 , D. Lucchesi22,q , M. Lucio Martinez37 , H. Luo50 ,
A. Lupato22 , E. Luppi16,f , O. Lupton55 , N. Lusardi21 , A. Lusiani23 , F. Machefert7 , F. Maciuc29 ,
O. Maev30 , K. Maguire54 , S. Malde55 , A. Malinin64 , G. Manca7 , G. Mancinelli6 , P. Manning59 ,
A. Mapelli38 , J. Maratas5 , J.F. Marchand4 , U. Marconi14 , C. Marin Benito36 , P. Marino23,38,s ,
J. Marks11 , G. Martellotti25 , M. Martin6 , M. Martinelli39 , D. Martinez Santos37 ,
F. Martinez Vidal66 , D. Martins Tostes2 , A. Massafferri1 , R. Matev38 , A. Mathad48 , Z. Mathe38 ,
C. Matteuzzi20 , A. Mauri40 , B. Maurin39 , A. Mazurov45 , M. McCann53 , J. McCarthy45 ,
A. McNab54 , R. McNulty12 , B. Meadows57 , F. Meier9 , M. Meissner11 , D. Melnychuk28 ,
M. Merk41 , D.A. Milanes62 , M.-N. Minard4 , D.S. Mitzel11 , J. Molina Rodriguez60 ,
I.A. Monroy62 , S. Monteil5 , M. Morandin22 , P. Morawski27 , A. Mordà6 , M.J. Morello23,s ,
J. Moron27 , A.B. Morris50 , R. Mountain59 , F. Muheim50 , J. Müller9 , K. Müller40 , V. Müller9 ,
M. Mussini14 , B. Muster39 , P. Naik46 , T. Nakada39 , R. Nandakumar49 , A. Nandi55 , I. Nasteva2 ,
M. Needham50 , N. Neri21 , S. Neubert11 , N. Neufeld38 , M. Neuner11 , A.D. Nguyen39 ,
T.D. Nguyen39 , C. Nguyen-Mau39,p , V. Niess5 , R. Niet9 , N. Nikitin32 , T. Nikodem11 , D. Ninci23 ,
A. Novoselov35 , D.P. O’Hanlon48 , A. Oblakowska-Mucha27 , V. Obraztsov35 , S. Ogilvy51 ,
O. Okhrimenko44 , R. Oldeman15,e , C.J.G. Onderwater67 , B. Osorio Rodrigues1 ,
J.M. Otalora Goicochea2 , A. Otto38 , P. Owen53 , A. Oyanguren66 , A. Palano13,c , F. Palombo21,t ,
M. Palutan18 , J. Panman38 , A. Papanestis49 , M. Pappagallo51 , L.L. Pappalardo16,f ,
C. Pappenheimer57 , C. Parkes54 , G. Passaleva17 , G.D. Patel52 , M. Patel53 , C. Patrignani19,i ,
A. Pearce54,49 , A. Pellegrino41 , G. Penso25,l , M. Pepe Altarelli38 , S. Perazzini14,d , P. Perret5 ,
L. Pescatore45 , K. Petridis46 , A. Petrolini19,i , M. Petruzzo21 , E. Picatoste Olloqui36 ,
B. Pietrzyk4 , T. Pilař48 , D. Pinci25 , A. Pistone19 , A. Piucci11 , S. Playfer50 , M. Plo Casasus37 ,
T. Poikela38 , F. Polci8 , A. Poluektov48,34 , I. Polyakov31 , E. Polycarpo2 , A. Popov35 ,
D. Popov10,38 , B. Popovici29 , C. Potterat2 , E. Price46 , J.D. Price52 , J. Prisciandaro39 ,
A. Pritchard52 , C. Prouve46 , V. Pugatch44 , A. Puig Navarro39 , G. Punzi23,r , W. Qian4 ,
R. Quagliani7,46 , B. Rachwal26 , J.H. Rademacker46 , M. Rama23 , M.S. Rangel2 , I. Raniuk43 ,
N. Rauschmayr38 , G. Raven42 , F. Redi53 , S. Reichert54 , M.M. Reid48 , A.C. dos Reis1 ,
S. Ricciardi49 , S. Richards46 , M. Rihl38 , K. Rinnert52 , V. Rives Molina36 , P. Robbe7,38 ,
A.B. Rodrigues1 , E. Rodrigues54 , J.A. Rodriguez Lopez62 , P. Rodriguez Perez54 , S. Roiser38 ,
V. Romanovsky35 , A. Romero Vidal37 , J. W. Ronayne12 , M. Rotondo22 , J. Rouvinet39 , T. Ruf38 ,
45
P. Ruiz Valls66 , J.J. Saborido Silva37 , N. Sagidova30 , P. Sail51 , B. Saitta15,e ,
V. Salustino Guimaraes2 , C. Sanchez Mayordomo66 , B. Sanmartin Sedes37 , R. Santacesaria25 ,
C. Santamarina Rios37 , M. Santimaria18 , E. Santovetti24,k , A. Sarti18,l , C. Satriano25,m ,
A. Satta24 , D.M. Saunders46 , D. Savrina31,32 , M. Schiller38 , H. Schindler38 , M. Schlupp9 ,
M. Schmelling10 , T. Schmelzer9 , B. Schmidt38 , O. Schneider39 , A. Schopper38 , M. Schubiger39 ,
M.-H. Schune7 , R. Schwemmer38 , B. Sciascia18 , A. Sciubba25,l , A. Semennikov31 , N. Serra40 ,
J. Serrano6 , L. Sestini22 , P. Seyfert20 , M. Shapkin35 , I. Shapoval16,43,f , Y. Shcheglov30 ,
T. Shears52 , L. Shekhtman34 , V. Shevchenko64 , A. Shires9 , B.G. Siddi16 , R. Silva Coutinho48 ,
G. Simi22 , M. Sirendi47 , N. Skidmore46 , I. Skillicorn51 , T. Skwarnicki59 , E. Smith55,49 ,
E. Smith53 , I. T. Smith50 , J. Smith47 , M. Smith54 , H. Snoek41 , M.D. Sokoloff57,38 , F.J.P. Soler51 ,
F. Soomro39 , D. Souza46 , B. Souza De Paula2 , B. Spaan9 , P. Spradlin51 , S. Sridharan38 ,
F. Stagni38 , M. Stahl11 , S. Stahl38 , S. Stefkova53 , O. Steinkamp40 , O. Stenyakin35 ,
S. Stevenson55 , S. Stoica29 , S. Stone59 , B. Storaci40 , S. Stracka23,s , M. Straticiuc29 ,
U. Straumann40 , L. Sun57 , W. Sutcliffe53 , K. Swientek27 , S. Swientek9 , V. Syropoulos42 ,
M. Szczekowski28 , P. Szczypka39,38 , T. Szumlak27 , S. T’Jampens4 , A. Tayduganov6 ,
T. Tekampe9 , M. Teklishyn7 , G. Tellarini16,f , F. Teubert38 , C. Thomas55 , E. Thomas38 ,
J. van Tilburg41 , V. Tisserand4 , M. Tobin39 , J. Todd57 , S. Tolk42 , L. Tomassetti16,f ,
D. Tonelli38 , S. Topp-Joergensen55 , N. Torr55 , E. Tournefier4 , S. Tourneur39 , K. Trabelsi39 ,
M.T. Tran39 , M. Tresch40 , A. Trisovic38 , A. Tsaregorodtsev6 , P. Tsopelas41 , N. Tuning41,38 ,
A. Ukleja28 , A. Ustyuzhanin65,64 , U. Uwer11 , C. Vacca15,e , V. Vagnoni14 , G. Valenti14 ,
A. Vallier7 , R. Vazquez Gomez18 , P. Vazquez Regueiro37 , C. Vázquez Sierra37 , S. Vecchi16 ,
J.J. Velthuis46 , M. Veltri17,g , G. Veneziano39 , M. Vesterinen11 , B. Viaud7 , D. Vieira2 ,
M. Vieites Diaz37 , X. Vilasis-Cardona36,o , A. Vollhardt40 , D. Volyanskyy10 , D. Voong46 ,
A. Vorobyev30 , V. Vorobyev34 , C. Voß63 , J.A. de Vries41 , R. Waldi63 , C. Wallace48 , R. Wallace12 ,
J. Walsh23 , S. Wandernoth11 , J. Wang59 , D.R. Ward47 , N.K. Watson45 , D. Websdale53 ,
A. Weiden40 , M. Whitehead48 , G. Wilkinson55,38 , M. Wilkinson59 , M. Williams38 ,
M.P. Williams45 , M. Williams56 , T. Williams45 , F.F. Wilson49 , J. Wimberley58 , J. Wishahi9 ,
W. Wislicki28 , M. Witek26 , G. Wormser7 , S.A. Wotton47 , S. Wright47 , K. Wyllie38 , Y. Xie61 ,
Z. Xu39 , Z. Yang3 , J. Yu61 , X. Yuan34 , O. Yushchenko35 , M. Zangoli14 , M. Zavertyaev10,b ,
L. Zhang3 , Y. Zhang3 , A. Zhelezov11 , A. Zhokhov31 , L. Zhong3 , S. Zucchelli14 .
1
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fı́sicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3
Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
4
LAPP, Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
5
Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
6
CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
7
LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
8
LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
9
Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
10
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
11
Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
12
School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
13
Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy
14
Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
15
Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
16
Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
17
Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
46
18
Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
19
Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
20
Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
21
Sezione INFN di Milano, Milano, Italy
22
Sezione INFN di Padova, Padova, Italy
23
Sezione INFN di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
24
Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
25
Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
26
Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
27
AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science,
Kraków, Poland
28
National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland
29
Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
30
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
31
Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
32
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
33
Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia
34
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
35
Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
36
Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
37
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
38
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
39
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
40
Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
41
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
42
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
43
NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
44
Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
45
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
46
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
47
Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
48
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
49
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
50
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
51
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
52
Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
53
Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
54
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
55
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
56
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States
57
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States
58
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States
59
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States
60
Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 2
61
Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China, associated to 3
62
Departamento de Fisica , Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, associated to 8
63
Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany, associated to 11
64
National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia, associated to 31
65
Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia, associated to 31
66
Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (IFIC), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain, associated to 36
67
Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, associated to 41
47
a
Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba-MG, Brazil
b
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, Russia
c
Università di Bari, Bari, Italy
d
Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
e
Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
f
Università di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
g
Università di Urbino, Urbino, Italy
h
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
i
Università di Genova, Genova, Italy
j
Università di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
k
Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
l
Università di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
m
Università della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
n
AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and
Telecommunications, Kraków, Poland
o
LIFAELS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain
p
Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Viet Nam
q
Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
r
Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
s
Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
t
Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
u
Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
†
Deceased
48

Cern 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cern 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

Observation of J/ψ p resonances

The LHCb collaboration1

Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.

800 (b) LHCb

2200 data 800

determine from the data.

State JP M0 (MeV) Γ0 (MeV) # Reduced # Extended

2200 data 800

Source M0 (MeV) Γ0 (MeV) Fit fractions (%)

2 Additional fit results 18

3 Fit fraction comparison between cFit and sFit 20

4 Details of the matrix element for the decay amplitude 22

5 Details of fitting techniques 36

2 Additional fit results

2.2 Extended model fit with one Pc+

2.3 Results of extended model fit with two Pc + states

3 Fit fraction comparison between cFit and sFit

2200 data 800

Particle Fit fraction (%) cFit Fit fraction (%) sFit

4.1 Helicity formalism and notation

The helicity couplings HλA→B

where P stands for the intrinsic parity of a particle.

4.2 Matrix element for the Λ∗ decay chain

Longitudinal polarization of the Λ0b

Dλ1ψ , ∆λµ (φµ , θψ , 0)∗ , (35)

4.3 Matrix element for the Pc+ decay chain

φμP −π P rest frame

The strong decay Pcj → ψp is described by a term

ψ is an intermediate particle, this has no consequences after we sum (coherently) over

Parity conservation in Pcj → ψp decays leads to the following relation

ei λµ αµ ei λµ̄ αµ̄ = ei (λµ −λµ̄ )αµ = ei ∆λµ αµ . (64)

4.4 Reduction of the number of helicity couplings

5 Details of fitting techniques

where sW ≡ i Wi / i Wi 2 is a constant factor accounting for the effect of the background

−2 ln L(→− Wi ln Psig (mKp i , Ωi |→

The last term does not depend on the fitted parameters → −

The 6-dimensional background parameterization Pbkg (mKp , Ω) is developed using the

The background term is then efficiency-corrected so it can be added to the efficiency-

(a) efficiency (b) background 2.5

[6] Belle collaboration, S. K. Choi et al., Observation of a resonance-like structure in the

[18] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and regres-

[26] S. U. Chung, Spin formalisms, CERN-71-08; J. D. Richman, An experimenter’s

[28] S. M. Flatté, Coupled-channel analysis of the πη and KK systems near KK threshold,

[31] J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, W. A. Ponce, and B. R. Holstein, Analysis of ∆S=1

[34] A. Chandra, A. Bhattacharya, and B. Chakrabarti, Heavy pentaquarks and doubly

[38] E. S. Swanson, Cusps and exotic charmonia, arXiv:1504.07952.

[41] J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Springer-Verlag, 1979.

[42] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurements

[44] LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Precision measurement of CP violation in Bs0 → J/ψK + K −

You might also like